View Full Version : Low Number '03 catastrophic failure- recent.
Over on the "Classic Rifles" forum on the doublegunshop.com site, a gentleman vividly describes the spectacular failure a couple days ago of a pre-war sporter based on a 1912-vintage Rock Island '03. Interesting discussion, to put it mildly.
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=446091#Post446091
That is why I will never attempt to fire a low number rifle. You just don't know. One can beat on a stick of dynamite with a hammer on an anvil, but which blow will set it off; the 2nd, 3rd, or 50th ?? A valuable piece of history is now gone.
I remember Michael being quite adamant that the rifles were OK and some of his risky tests to prove his belief; like firing an 8x57mm in an '06 chambered low number action.
chuckindenver
06-08-2016, 09:53
notice it was a cast bullet load... iv seen 2 SHT rifles fail from the same type of loading in the last couple years...id like some pics of the rifle to keep with my collection of failures..
as iv always said.'
if you make the choice to fire a SHT 1903... use only current factory loads. not handloads.. and not cast loading...
he got lucky, and looks like some face scars for the future..
ElWoodman
06-08-2016, 06:27
I am curious....Was that NEW brass, once fired, or as the facts of the case may suggest-worn out? Was the case full length sized? In every case of a L/N 03 blowing up, there has ALWAYS been a mention of "...brass case still in chamber, missing its head...". I have 2 L/N 03s....Shoot Hornady Custom Lite 125 grain through'em.
PhillipM
06-08-2016, 11:56
It's always a reload.
From what few I have seen, they load some light load with pistol powder to take it easy on the old action.
My theory is they double charged their light load, blow the gun up, then refuse to admit their load could have been the fault.
cplnorton
06-09-2016, 03:28
Hey is there some trick to registering at that forum? I have tried about five different email accounts and all say they are banned.
That looks like a neat forum to join, as it looks like a lot of Adolf Neidner Rifle collectors in there.
**I finally found one that would work, AOL.
psteinmayer
06-09-2016, 03:58
He had stated that it was 28 grains of 5744. Doesn't state what the bullet weight was. I've shot 185 gr NOE 365311 cast out of my 1898 Krag sporter that is set up for bench-rest shooting. I only use 17 grains of 5744 with that, and it's plenty powerful enough to drive tacks at 200 yards! I imagine that 28 grains of the stuff is down right brutal, even in a high numbered 03!
chuckindenver
06-09-2016, 06:34
90% of SHT failures are from simple case head failures...
over load, worn cases. ect.. SHT actions dont survive this.. heck... not many guns can
Griff Murphey
06-09-2016, 07:04
Have a friend who dented the chamber and ruined the barrel on a nice 98 Krag firing lead bullets ... Loose gas check? Who knows...
Personally I only have two type guns I am kind of careful to the extent of loading them down, a 1914 Winchester 95 with slightly excessive headspace and my Krags. On those guns I use standard published loads and drop them 3-5 grains more down from the minimum. I am not a cast bullet man except for .45-70.
All charged cases will be in a loading block and inspected individually with a Mag Light.
Read the guy's post and he said that 28 gr. load was 30,000 psi. If I owned a low number I wouldn't shoot it. I sure would not try a 30,000 psi load in it. The chamber pressure I remember having to learn in ROTC for the M-1 was 28,000....
I had a SHT Springfield receiver break on me and I was not even shooting it. I was disassembling the rifle as the bolt was stuck. It would turn but when attempting to remove is, it would not come out. When pulling back it would stick in the rear receiver ring. To get to move forward I had to tap it with a hammer. Used a brass hammer.
Finily I had had enough and set in the vise. Pulled the bot back to where it would stick. Than gave it a good hit with the hammer.
The bolt came out with a cracked handle, also a SHT bolt. The receive rear ring split at the rail. So now I have a trashed receiver. SO let see if these are that brittle. Set the receiver in the vise and really smacked it. It shattered into 5 or 6 pieces.
Lesson learned, I do not use any SHT receivers or bolts.
PhillipM
06-09-2016, 07:37
Have a friend who dented the chamber and ruined the barrel on a nice 98 Krag firing lead bullets ... Loose gas check? Who knows...
Personally I only have two type guns I am kind of careful to the extent of loading them down, a 1914 Winchester 95 with slightly excessive headspace and my Krags. On those guns I use standard published loads and drop them 3-5 grains more down from the minimum. I am not a cast bullet man except for .45-70.
All charged cases will be in a loading block and inspected individually with a Mag Light.
Read the guy's post and he said that 28 gr. load was 30,000 psi. If I owned a low number I wouldn't shoot it. I sure would not try a 30,000 psi load in it. The chamber pressure I remember having to learn in ROTC for the M-1 was 28,000....
M2 ball 50,000. Proof load 70,000
Hatcher tried to blow up an M1 and gave up at 120,000
Bolts are not considered dangerous only the receivers have the possible failures.
Griff Murphey
06-09-2016, 08:57
M2 ball 50,000. Proof load 70,000
Hatcher tried to blow up an M1 and gave up at 120,000
Oops. Of course you are right. Muzzle velocity of 2800 FPS must have confused my drifting thoughts. Correction accepted and red faced at this time!!!
Dan Shapiro
06-09-2016, 09:02
Hatcher tried to blow up an M1 and gave up at 120,000
They did not want to destroy their measuring equipment.
psteinmayer
06-09-2016, 09:50
My Krag load of 17 grains of 5744 came from the 49th Lyman manual. I should look up the data for 30-06 and just see. Now my interest has been peaked! Regardless, I've heard enough of the horror stories associated with the SHT receivers and bolts enough to not want to shoot one in my lifetime!
kragluver
06-09-2016, 11:47
I use 22 gr of 4759 under a 200 gr cast bullet in my 03A3 to get about 1800 fps. 5744 and 4759 have very similar burn rates. 28 gr sounds like a lot of 5744. I doubt you could double charge the case with 5744 without overflowing it.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't assume cast bullet loads are necessarily "safe" in a LN '03. People seem to forget that it is not the normal pressure loads that blow the rifle up (or cause case head failures with good cases). Its the unexpected high pressure incidents (over-sized bullets, over charged cases, barrel obstructions, excessive headspace, etc, etc). Shooting lower pressure cast loads from you LN '03 won't provide sufficient margin if there is an error. You still end up with a destroyed rifle.
I use 22 gr of 4759 under a 200 gr cast bullet in my 03A3 to get about 1800 fps. 5744 and 4759 have very similar burn rates. 28 gr sounds like a lot of 5744. I doubt you could double charge the case with 5744 without overflowing it.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't assume cast bullet loads are necessarily "safe" in a LN '03. People seem to forget that it is not the normal pressure loads that blow the rifle up (or cause case head failures with good cases). Its the unexpected high pressure incidents (over-sized bullets, over charged cases, barrel obstructions, excessive headspace, etc, etc). Shooting lower pressure cast loads from you LN '03 won't provide sufficient margin if there is an error. You still end up with a destroyed rifle.
The OP in the original thread stated he purposely loaded the bullets long in the case to engage the rifling.In addition, he used excess lube on the cast bullets, which built up in the chamber.
I would think this would cause an over pressure situation that certainly didn't help. Do you guys think that would be the cause of the blow up, or just a contributor?
He insisted the once fired cases were properly annealed.
kragluver
06-09-2016, 02:00
Long bullets seated into the rifling and case lube buildup in the chamber could certainly raise pressures. This is usually "okay" with a light cast bullet load as the load is typically well below the working pressure of the rifle. A cast bullet will also swage down more easily than a jacketed bullet. However, with full power loads, this can raise pressures to the danger levels. Pressures can climb nonlinearly. See the book Firearm Pressure Factors (recommended reading for any serious handloader). His stated load of 28 gr of 5744 sounds like it may be near max. I don't know that for a fact as I haven't looked it up. Its certainly higher than the cast loads I use in .30-06. It may be a safe load in normal cases, but if it is near max, I would not be cramming the projectile into the rifling. Doing so will cause pressures to spike up very quickly. I would not advise doing this with any cartridge or rifle with powder loads near max (LN '03 or not).
I just looked at Alliant's loading manual online and they list 30 gr of 5744 as a max load for a 200 gr cast bullet giving 42KSI under "normal" conditions. His bullet weight was 210 gr and 28 gr of powder. He was up there but probably not at max. If the bullet was seated long, this could have definitely have caused on over-pressure condition.
Thanks, that post raised a red flag to me. Sounds similar to the old practice of greased bullets as well. He stated he learned it from other bench rest shooters.
Whether cause or contributor, I guess we'll never know.
psteinmayer
06-09-2016, 02:55
Lyman's 49th lists 28 grains of 5744 as a starting load for a 210 grain cast bullet. However, that is most likely for modern rifles or high numbered 03s and 03A3s. I imagine that it's pretty stout for a SHT rifle, especially when you factor in excess lube, high starting pressures, etc. I believe all of this adds up to a disaster in the making!
1. Just about every modern blow up of any milsurp rifle I've heard of has been with hand loaded ammunition.
2. The problem with low number rifles isn't that they can fail, it's how they fail when they do. The OP is a classic low number failure. I once had an M1 carbine blow up on me after a fellow had asked me to shoot it. I believe it was a combination of a handload and bad headspace on that particular rifle. I did not get a scratch though shooting glasses may have saved my eyes. Of course it was not a low number '03.
3. A low number '03 may never fail but if they do fail due to a case head separation this is what you can expect. A DHT or nickle steel receiver is going to break but not shatter. That's just a fact proven in testing.
4. On pistol powder, some of the low number '03 failures occurred with "Guard Cartridges" loaded with pistol powder.
I don't understand the almost religious obsession with the idea that a low number '03 is as safe as a high number '03 despite all the evidence to the contrary. Most '03 SHT rifles are probably safe but if anyone insists on shooting them and there's a catastrophic failure due to a case head separation....well no sniveling. This is especially true if the failure occurred with a hand load.... any hand load. The correct ammo is USGI ball or the FACTORY equivalent. Anything else, IMHO, increases your risk.
This is a heart breaking bit of news for all of us. I have owned a nice low number for over 30 years and shudder to think of the emotional (and physical) loss if this happened to me. I'm sure the owner feels this way as well as the other collectors who posted. My condolences to him.
StockDoc
06-10-2016, 08:17
1. Just about every modern blow up of any milsurp rifle I've heard of has been with hand loaded ammunition.
2. The problem with low number rifles isn't that they can fail, it's how they fail when they do. The OP is a classic low number failure. I once had an M1 carbine blow up on me after a fellow had asked me to shoot it. I believe it was a combination of a handload and bad headspace on that particular rifle. I did not get a scratch though shooting glasses may have saved my eyes. Of course it was not a low number '03.
3. A low number '03 may never fail but if they do fail due to a case head separation this is what you can expect. A DHT or nickle steel receiver is going to break but not shatter. That's just a fact proven in testing.
4. On pistol powder, some of the low number '03 failures occurred with "Guard Cartridges" loaded with pistol powder.
I don't understand the almost religious obsession with the idea that a low number '03 is as safe as a high number '03 despite all the evidence to the contrary. Most '03 SHT rifles are probably safe but if anyone insists on shooting them and there's a catastrophic failure due to a case head separation....well no sniveling. This is especially true if the failure occurred with a hand load.... any hand load. The correct ammo is USGI ball or the FACTORY equivalent. Anything else, IMHO, increases your risk.
^this^
I don't know why, but it seems that every generation has to relearn what the generations before it already knew.
From what few I have seen, they load some light load with pistol powder to take it easy on the old action.
My theory is they double charged their light load, blow the gun up, then refuse to admit their load could have been the fault.
I love the way people jump to the conclusions. Some things are even more predictable that an 03 blowing up...
From what few I have seen, they load some light load with pistol powder to take it easy on the old action.
My theory is they double charged their light load, blow the gun up, then refuse to admit their load could have been the fault.
That is a hypothesis, hardly a theory. The difference being immense.
You really should read the OP first you know. The first part of your hypothesis is easily disproved. The second part is just wrong :)
IditarodJoe
06-10-2016, 01:06
Actually Einstein, Phillip's use of the word "theory" is perfectly acceptable in this context (the word "hypothesis" would be equally valid). As for the rest of your post, sheesh! You're the one who blew up a nice collectable rifle, and now you come running to a gun forum you haven't even posted to in the past looking for . . . what? Vindication? Notoriety? Sympathy? Hey, you screwed up - deal with it.
(Sorry guys, but people like this really frost my butt.)
PhillipM
06-10-2016, 09:57
That is a hypothesis, hardly a theory. The difference being immense.
You really should read the OP first you know. The first part of your hypothesis is easily disproved. The second part is just wrong :)
hypothesis, theory, theorem, supposition, whatever. High school semantics were a long time ago.
My all of the above is that low number 03 blow ups have all been from handloads, bore obstruction, or other ammunition problems.
My theorem, which you are encouraged to disprove, is that no one can find a low number 03 blown up by good surplus or commercial ammunition. I say good surplus because M split case heads like on some lots of Korean, for example will wreck any rifle and blow a ln 03 to bits.
There are thousands of low number sporter 03's out there that hit the hunting fields every year with owners that don't know the ln/hn problem, but they shoot just fine.
I have shot my 1904 production rifle just for grins, but it lives in the safe, my high numbers shoot the same.
hypothesis, theory, theorem, supposition, whatever. High school semantics were a long time ago.
'tis no wonder we have such problems these days on social media and elsewhere. If you don't know the differences, what I can I say? English used to be a well understood language, but no longer, and apparently your high school, like most others, has a well watered down curriculum.
As far as I have been able to find, commercial ammo has pressures running in the low to upper 40K PSI range, with some way into the 50s. However, no manufacturer actually has the balls to put their pressures on their boxes (at least not Remington, Winchester and a few others I looked at today). Now stuffing some 45-55K PSI commercial ammo of unknown pressure into that rifle would have been really stupid.
The load I used books at 30,300 PSI. Well below any estimates I can find for commercial ammo. It was also the listed beginning load for that bullet and powder combination. I don't think it was entirely foolish to try it, given that one is going to shoot a low number 03. Yet clearly even that was too much last Saturday.
I made the original post on the forum that I did because intelligent people who own, collect, and use 03s hang out there. What they choose to do in the future is up to each of them, but now they have just a little more information.
BrentD
You have certainly started out on the wrong foot here. This forum has one of the best knowledgeable military rifle membership base. Especially on the 1903.
Michael Petrov was a valued member and friend to many here, as you may note in the sticky on the main page. The snippet of comments you took out of context weren't aimed at you, but had been shown to be a cause in previous blown receivers. The subject has been documented well by both Brophy and Hatcher in their respective books.
If you want an intelligent discussion here, good manners are required, the same manners you displayed in your original thread on the other forum.
I think I know what happened, and noted it earlier in this thread, but am not an expert reloader. Below is the quote that made me think you had a catastrophic pressure spike.
#446249 - 06/07/16 07:34 AM Re: High vs. Low [Re: BrentD]
BrentD Offline
Sidelock
**
Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 2376
Loc: Iowa
I think I can rule out the headspace problem as I understand it.
First, the brass was Winchester brass that had been previously fire one time only, and the same rifle. Thus, it was well fire formed to the chamber. It had been annealed before the first and and second loads in my annealing machine. I have great faith that it was neither over or under annealed.
More importantly, I was using a lead bullet (approximately Lyman #2 alloy for hardness), which I had loaded a bit longer than MOA so that they were forced into the rifling. This made the bolt hard to close because the lead was lightly engraved on the first band and nose and the bullets, being tumble lubed, had to negotiate that sticky nose into the rifling. There is no chance that the brass was anywhere but against the bolt face when the primer stuck.
Because the bullet was well engaged in the throat, there is also very little chance, in my mind, that the firing pin could have moved the case forward before detonating the primer. If this was happening, the primer strikes on the prior rounds would be quite light, but they are not.
Perhaps engaging the rifling with the bullet increased the pressures substantially. I have my doubts about this since breech seating procedures that do the same thing to a greater degree are widely practiced in the Schuetzen world where I sometimes hang out.
So, in sum, I think we can rule out headspace as the cause.
I will measure across the threads of the barrel and see what I find.
The remains of the blown round are still in the chamber so trying to fit a piece of brass in there is not possible. I have not tried to extract the brass. BTW, all the previously fired rounds had extracted normally with ease.
I am on the fence about these SEE events. Maybe, maybe not, but several folks have independently informed me about 5744 being a bit "tricky" in that it seems to have produced other unusual and rare events that might be signs of high pressure issues in seemingly normal loads."
Glad you survived to discuss this.
Parashooter
06-11-2016, 04:51
My Krag load of 17 grains of 5744 came from the 49th Lyman manual. I should look up the data for 30-06 and just see. Now my interest has been peaked! Regardless, I've heard enough of the horror stories associated with the SHT receivers and bolts enough to not want to shoot one in my lifetime!
That's odd, your Krag is "SHT" by the same process. Maybe something other than the heat treatment is involved. Hmmm. . . .
That's odd, your Krag is "SHT" by the same process. Maybe something other than the heat treatment is involved. Hmmm. . . .
Rimmed ammunition is much more forgiving.
Of course how the process is executed matters a lot too.....
kragluver
06-11-2016, 06:29
The head I f the Krag cartridge is fully enclosed by the chamber when the bolt is closed. A case head separation is not a big deal in a Krag or an Enfield. In a Mauser based action, the rear portion of the case is unsupported. A case head separation will allow high pressure gas back into the receiver. The SHT design of the Krag did indeed cause issues in a different manner - cracked bolt lugs when the Army attempted to adopt the 2200 fps cartridge. Some rifles performed just fine while others developed cracks in the front lug.
kragluver
06-11-2016, 06:31
The head of the Krag cartridge is fully enclosed by the chamber when the bolt is closed. A case head separation is not a big deal in a Krag or an Enfield. In a Mauser based action, the rear portion of the case is unsupported. A case head separation will allow high pressure gas back into the receiver. The SHT design of the Krag did indeed cause issues in a different manner - cracked bolt lugs when the Army attempted to adopt the 2200 fps cartridge. Some rifles performed just fine while others developed cracks in the front lug.
The OP in the original thread stated he purposely loaded the bullets long in the case to engage the rifling.In addition, he used excess lube on the cast bullets, which built up in the chamber.
I would think this would cause an over pressure situation that certainly didn't help. Do you guys think that would be the cause of the blow up, or just a contributor?
He insisted the once fired cases were properly annealed.
Can't speak for the load used by the SHT failure. Can say have fired a wheel barrow load or two... three of cast lead handloaded ammunition in 03 and 03-A3 rifles since 1980. Have used routine care in loading. Have not ever had a single issue. The same is true of my loads using jacketed bullets. The bullet is not problematic if it is appropriate to the rifle being used. Do doubt that merely having a well fitted Lyman #2 alloy bullet fully engraved when chambered was the direct cause of the failure. Do consider the strong possibility of a error in charging the case, either a double-charge. Once upon a time was loading .45 ACP. Had one round report louder on firing. No other problems. Case primer showed more pressure than normal. Load used was a mild mid-range target load w/ 200 gr. H&G 68 bullet. If using a low charge weight pistol powder, entirely possible to inadvertently make an error if checking after charging is not rigorous.
AFAIK, there is no one winning at any significant level of benchrest competition using anything but hand loaded ammunition. I have fired a lot of pistol matches. Lots of fellows use the 9mm b/c is it cheap. They shoot factory ammo and do fine. But, the fellows who shoot enough to be at the top are shooting hand loads... or they are factory sponsored.
All of the early receivers were less than ideal for handling gas. All of them were heat treated under less than ideal conditions compared to later techniques. The beautiful Swedish 96's are not any better than the 93's, etc. They reflect the realities of the era in which they were developed. The 03 was a derivative of the Spanish 7mm Mauser. It was designed to produce excellent feeding... thus the coned breech that so many folks opine in problematic. The later Win. M-54 and then M-70 used that exact same coned breech. Their success was due to improvements in heat treating as well as venting. The original 03 method of using a little gas vent in the right locking lug ... through the extractor... through the right receiver ring was not good. The Hatcher hole was a very good retrofit. Ideally milling the bolt ala the Mauser 98 would have been extremely helpful. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
psteinmayer
06-12-2016, 04:26
That's odd, your Krag is "SHT" by the same process. Maybe something other than the heat treatment is involved. Hmmm. . . .
That's true Para... Didn't think about that one!
Also, I mis-quoted myself - my Krag load is actually 19 grains, which is still a hell of a lot less than 28 grains.
butlersrangers
06-12-2016, 07:03
Last year on this Forum, when there was considerable discussion of Hatcher, LN 1903 Springfield failures, and single heat treat / 'burnt steel' problems, '5MadFarmers' shared period metallurgy findings (War Department Document 901) that showed the steel alloy on some failed rifles was out of specifications.
(IIRC - excessive levels of Phosphorus and Sulfur in the steel alloy, which compromised the strength and elasticity of some LN receivers).
I have done a considerable amount of reloading over the years and make it a point to consult several sources when working up new loads or using new to me powders and bullet combinations.
That said, something bothers me that maybe others can clarify. Accurate's online tables for 5744 and the 30-06 shows the following:
REDUCED LOADS-NO OTHER LOADS RECOMMENDED
200 grain Lyman #31129. 22 gr
210 gr bullet is not listed, but that being the case, shouldn't it be a loading of 18-20 gr?
How do you reconcile the difference in Accurate's factory website and Lyman's 49th? Seeing the loads others have posted it would seem Lyman is wrong.
Any ideas?
Texraid, I too now question the Lyman data. Here is the relevant page of that manual. Note the differences in max load pressures among the various powders listed for this bullet, but more importantly, look at the differences in minimum loads for this powder using this bullet in comparison to the same powder and the minimum loading for the 311299 bullet (upper right table).
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Rock%20Island%201903/Lyman%20Cast%20Bullet%20Manual%204th%20edition.jpg
psteinmayer
06-13-2016, 11:43
Looks like something very fishy in that data! Why would a 195 gr bullet start at 23 grains, a 200 gr bullet start at 21 grains... and then a 210 gr bullet jump to a whopping 28 grains?
Looks like something very fishy in that data! Why would a 195 gr bullet start at 23 grains, a 200 gr bullet start at 21 grains... and then a 210 gr bullet jump to a whopping 28 grains?
That's what i was thinking after looking at Accurate's loading data.
Art
psteinmayer
06-13-2016, 01:50
Although I'm certainly no expert when it comes to bullet design and variances... I'm fairly sure that powder charge is based on bullet weight, so I believe that a 210 grain bullet is 210 grains, be it a Hornady, Nosler, Sierra... etc. The same should go for cast also, whether it's a Lyman, LEE, NOE, etc. 28 grains is one hell of a jump from 21, and (again, I'm not any kind of expert here) as far as I know, powder charges generally go down as bullet weight goes up. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know...
Although I'm certainly no expert when it comes to bullet design and variances... I'm fairly sure that powder charge is based on bullet weight, so I believe that a 210 grain bullet is 210 grains, be it a Hornady, Nosler, Sierra... etc. The same should go for cast also, whether it's a Lyman, LEE, NOE, etc. 28 grains is one hell of a jump from 21, and (again, I'm not any kind of expert here) as far as I know, powder charges generally go down as bullet weight goes up. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know...
You are not wrong. Even if I/you are wrong, I can't fathom a 36% increase! That would be based on 18gr. IF that is correct.
I can't help but wonder if Lyman intended to print 18 instead of 28??? That would certainly be more in line for a starting load and would logically follow Accurate's factory load data.
Art
Texraid,
Your habit of checking multiple sources is obviously a REALLY GOOD IDEA in hindsight. I don't know many sources that publish data for very many cast lead bullets, but clearly I need to find another one, if I'm to play with modern rifles like this.
slamfire
06-14-2016, 11:54
This is just another example of why it is best practice not to shoot these old rifles with any load at all. They are as a class: unsafe.
The Army was an Infantry centric organization and the knuckle draggers did not understand nor did they want to understand production problems and they were certainly not interesting in spending money on their Arsenals. Instead of fighting this, and scuttling any chances of promotion, I believe the Colonels in charge of Springfield Arsenal spent their tour drinking mint juleps between chukkers on the parade ground in front of Springfield Arsenal. I have seen pictures of these guys doing just that. The Army did not want to hear bad news and instead created fallacious stories that absolved them of all fault and responsibility when their single heat treat receivers blew. Since most of these guns blew up in a period when shooters greased bullets, the Army created the story that greased bullets, greased chambers were the cause, because by the process of elimination, it had to be the grease. Their perfect rifles were blowing with their perfect ammunition, so it had to be the grease. This is still believed by the vast majority of the shooting community, the dominate posters on this forum, and it is all bunk. The problem with single heat treat receivers was a combination of an old, antiqued factory with old antiquated equipment, an illogical production flow, and an organizational attitude where the hierarchy only wanted to hear good things. Workers in such organizations learn quickly that the bearer of bad news is not welcome, and if such a person is too persistent, management terminates them.
There are a number of issues with all of the single heat treat 03's. Firstly, the problem was not the heat treatment. The single heat treatment would have produced a perfectly satisfactory receiver, (caveat: for the period) but Army was negligent in buying instrumentation for their factories. Instead of buying pyrometers, workers were required to judge steel temperature based on their eyeballs. Eyeballs cannot hold the temperature tolerances required for heat treatment of those steels. Basically the workers were using Medieval production methods because it was cheaper, and the Army priorities were not keeping their Arsenals up to date. I am of the opinion it was more than benign neglect, it was a matter of Corporate Culture. According Dr Deiter Storz's book: Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918 Amberg Arsenal installed pyrometers in 1906. The German Technical staff and Managers recognized the limitations of eyeballs in heat treatment, that is they thought about it, and decided to improve their production line to make good rifles.
As an example of the improvement in duty lifetime when production lines were organized logically, and instrument used to evaluate temperature, instead of eyeballs, I offer this is book review from Jan 1926 Transactions of the American Society for Steel Treating.
Making Springs for Motor Vehicles
Canadian Machinery, 12 Nov 1925, page 15
The author of this paper discusses the benefits that have come to the manufacture of springs in the motor car industry from metallurgical research. Springs today stand four or five times the work of those a few year ago because the “skill” and “guessing” of the forger has been replaced by heat treating furnaces with temperatures maintained at the proper degree by pyrometers. The Dowsley Spring and Axle Co., Chatham, Ont., a subsidiary of the Ontario Products Co., is taken as an example of a thoroughly modern plant, and its work discussed. There are 145 men employed in the plant and production averages about 55 tons of springs a day, a single spring weighing anywhere from 17 to 44 pounds.
The plant is so arranged that material follows a straight path from storage to shipping room. Until a few years ago all springs were heat treated in small oil-fired furnaces. Today this method had been discarded. A continuous heat treating, forming, and quenching process has been evolved, which is practically automatic and eliminates the human element. As an example of what careful- heat treatment has done toward prolonging the life of springs, the results of test of springs made by the hand method and those by the continuous heat treatment method are interesting. Some years ago 40,0000 deflections were about the average before failure, now 120,000 is a low figure.
You can see in this the early vacuum tube era (1925) that a changeover from eyeballs to temperature gauges has really improved the fatigue lifetime of springs.
If the receiver was burnt, that is over heated during forging, it cannot be fixed by heat treating. Burning steel is not like burning toast but anyone with brains has noticed you cannot stick burnt toast back in the toaster and heat it back to fresh. Once ruined, it is ruined. Burnt steel is a fusion reaction, fusing the steel into one big austenite crystal. The desired crystalline structure is martensitic. But when steel is raised to a “white hot” temperature the steel is all in the austineitic phase. When it cools from this temperature it is a very hard, brittle steel. I have been told by metallurgists the carbon is burnt out. It is impossible to anneal or heat treat burnt steel back to a useable material. Long anneals will break up some of the hard areas, but not all. To make the steel useable it would have to be completed melted and cast again, as it is came from the steel foundry.
The single heat treat cycle was
Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 1 to 800,000
Material, Class C Steel
Treatment: Carburize in bone at 1500 F for 4 hours, then quench in oil
Another problem with single and double heat treat receivers is the low grade of the Class C and Class A materials used in single and double heat treat receivers. These materials are low strength and have a very low fatigue life compared to alloy steels. In every particular, these plain carbon steels are inferior to alloy steels. Watertown Arsenal was urging Springfield Armory to use 2340 instead of Class C steels prior to WW1, and the recommendations were ignored. Springfield Armory used this stuff primarily because it was cheap and the production engineers at Springfield Armory were familiar with the material. There is no justification for the continued use of these materials based on material properties. Today identical materials are used on rail road spikes and cheap rebar, because they are so low grade and cheap. No one in their right mind would use the same materials in a firearms application, unless they wanted to be sued. Plain carbon steels were commonly used on parts prior to WW2, but metallurgy in the 1920's and 30's advanced so quickly that by the time you get to WW2 it is obvious that plain carbon steels are only a good choice if cost is the number one criteria and the loads are not high or safety critical.
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. The black chemical etching, which I assume is the unhardened steel, show that 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. As is shown on the right of the diagram, the hardness of these coupons varies by depth. This is not good as consistent hardening provides consistent 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.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/hardenability%20steel%20Bain%201932%20Best%20scan_ zpsycq5kfl8.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/M1903/hardenability%20steel%20Bain%201932%20Best%20scan_ zpsycq5kfl8.jpg.html)
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. In this early 1920’s chart, for the same essential heat treatment, the nickel alloy steel always has a higher yield, a significantly higher yield in all cases, than the plain carbon steel.
Nickel steel versus plain carbon steel
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/nickle%20steel%202340%20dec%201926%20Am%20Soc%20St eel%20Treatment_zps1lestjux.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/M1903/nickle%20steel%202340%20dec%201926%20Am%20Soc%20St eel%20Treatment_zps1lestjux.jpg.html)
What is not shown in these charts is a material property called 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.
Pryometric cones have been around since the 1800’s, but I have no idea if they were used at Springfield Arsenal or even in the steel mills of the period. I don’t know if anyone reading this understands vacuum tube technology, late vacuum tube technology was much better than early vacuum tube technology, and no vacuum tube technology meant process controls depended on sight, taste, touch, and smell. These early M1903’s are pre vacuum tube technology. Human sensory perceptions have their limits and processes governed by them are not going to be very exact or repeatable. You see this in every evaluation of the steels of the period. This is an excellent example of what I find when someone reports a technical analysis of WW1 era steels:
Rolling Block strenght
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?52526-Rolling-Block-strenght/page2
I did not know this until I looked as a response to your post. However, I have worked with Steel my entire professional career. I was the head of a Testing Lab in a steel manufacturing facility for 4+ years. During that time, I was provided a ferrule from a WW1 fighter airplane for testing. It was made from what was labeled "high strength steel" (the label was from WW1). I tested it and found that it was lower strength than the lowest strength steel that can be bought today. In addition, it had a lot more impurities than would be allowed today, particularly sulfer. (PS. "today" means from about 1975 to 1980). I know that steel has continued to increase since then in strength, ductility, and all the other desireable characteristics we use without thinking about it.
Therefore, 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. We also know the steels of the period were inferior in material properties to the exact same compositions made today, just due to the process controls of the period. 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?
Therefore, regardless of the hoopla around double heat treat receivers, “old world craftsmanship”, or the romantic feelings and emotions of those who believe the past was a better place, these old plain carbon steels are inferior in all aspects to alloy steels. 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.
So, based on the unpredictability of these low number receivers, you just don't know how long it will be till something breaks. There were so many accidents that in 1927 an Army board looked at these things, reheated samples and found that 33 1/3% would break in an overpressure condition. The board recommended scrapping all 1,000,000 of the rifles, but because it was the cheaper solution, the Army decided to keep the rifles in service. It was cheaper to injure a Soldier, Sailor, or Marine than to replace the $40.00 rifle that injured the man. I don't know your feeling about this, but I consider this evil and unethical behavior. Any service man refusing to shoot this rifle, because of fears it might break, would be subject to a court marshal, but this is a moot point: they were not informed anyway. The Army never really went out and told anyone that their rifles were defective, we did not know the true extent of the problem until the Springfields were out of service, and Hatcher published his Book: Hatcher's Notebook in 1947!
The more I study this issue, the more I am disturbed to read the narratives from people whom the shooting community considers to an authority figure. Dr Lyons is one, he is a low number Springfield fan and by his analysis he is promoting risky behavior.
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Some Observations On The Failure Of U.S. Model 1903 Rifle Receivers
Dr Lyon’s risk analysis is solely based on the list in Hatcher’s Notebook. There are known low number blowups before Hatcher’s list starts, and there are known low number blowups after Hatcher’s database ends. Hatcher’s list is an incomplete list of low number accidents. It is really disturbing to realize that Dr Lyon is a medical Doctor (might be a reason 120,000 people die each year to medical mistakes) and to see that his analysis ignores underlying causes. Dr Lyon’s is not interested why these things break. His analysis is strictly on the numbers in a data base. For him, the characteristics of low number receivers are irrelevant. The technology of the era, the poor quality of the steel, the lack of process control technology, these are all ignored by Dr Lyon. It is as if low number failures have no assignable causes: the receivers just blow up randomly. No rime or reason to it, just acts of God, totally unknowable and unforeseeable. His statistics provide assurance to many that the risk of shooting a low number receiver is very small, but his analysis is very flawed . There are reasons beyond random chance why these receivers are structurally deficient.[/SIZE]
Cosine26
06-15-2016, 11:01
SLAMFIRE
You have provided an excellent analysis on the inferiority of the Class C Steel used in the production of early M1903 receivers and bolts and the inferior processes for heat treating the receivers and bolts of the SHT/LN carbon steel M1903 rifles; however I do not think that you have done much to dispel the "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up" mantra so prominent with the defenders of these early rifles.
One of the earliest analysis (not nearly so complete as yours) appeared in the Dope Bag of the American Rifleman for October of 1945. George Vitt an employee of A.F. Holden Co. ( one of the foremost heat treating companies of the time) Indicated that the carbon steel used in these products was inferior and was not suitable for such use. He further indicated that the DHT version was not much better than the reheated SHT receiver used by R.F. Sedgley. He does not address the "burned" steel receivers.
In 1996 an article (by the University of Missouri-Rolla) discussing the properties of the early 20th century carbon steel was discussed and in great detail explained the short comings of the processes. This discussion was based upon analysis of the then (circa 1996) carbon steel and a comparison with steel examples taken from the RMS TITANC. There were many shortcomings and the TITANIC steel post dated the Class C steel used in the carbons steel M1903 components.
Many of the paragons of knowledge of firearms in the 20's and 30's ( Crossman and Whelan) decried any disparaging remarks concerning these early rifles. Col Whelan on many occasions recommended having a SHT/LN receiver re-heatreated by Sedgley when a barrel replacement was necessary, for Springfield Armory refused to rebarrel these actions. This despite the fact, that SA would replace the SHT/LN receivers free of charge. Col Whelan recommended that a writer who had one of the early M1922 gallery rifles,sent this action to Sedgley for re-heatreating and rebarreling to 30-06. As a matter of fact, SA early on would replace the bolts also but stopped doing this for many owners objected. SA then adopted the policy of replacing bolts on if requested to do so. The notice appeared an early AR, but I have been unable to find the article. I know that some will dispute this, but one day I shall find the article and post it.
As an added point, some of these actions have been in use many years. Perhaps a weak spot existed and was continually stressed until failure occurred. I have had a DHT action fail, never catastrophically, but a failure. I have not had a failure of a NS M1903 action.
Thanks for your analysis.
chuckindenver
06-15-2016, 03:07
NS, steel failure.. rifle did survive
Cosine26
06-15-2016, 03:22
http://s116.photobucket.com/user/Cosine1/library/M1917Rem (Click on picture to enlarge)
Here is a picture of a Remington M1917 that I blew up because of a hand loading error. After the stuck case was removed, the rifle head spaced OK and there was no damage to the receiver or the bolt.
I was using what I thought was IMR 4350 but it turned out to be IMR 4064 (taken from an unlabeled can) Load was 54 grains of powder behind a 190 grain bullet. Big mistake! My only injury was the black mark on my face as I was wearing industrial grade safety glasses. For what it is worth bullet hit was a low V @ 6 o'clock at 1000 yards. Poor consolation. Nickel steel action and bolt held.
FWIW
slamfire
06-15-2016, 07:53
You have provided an excellent analysis on the inferiority of the Class C Steel used in the production of early M1903 receivers and bolts and the inferior processes for heat treating the receivers and bolts of the SHT/LN carbon steel M1903 rifles; however I do not think that you have done much to dispel the "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up" mantra so prominent with the defenders of these early rifles.
Thanks for the nice words and support. We must team together to fight ignorance and superstition. It is a never ending fight as every day a wise man dies, but every second an ignorant baby is born.
In 1996 an article (by the University of Missouri-Rolla) discussing the properties of the early 20th century carbon steel was discussed and in great detail explained the short comings of the processes. This discussion was based upon analysis of the then (circa 1996) carbon steel and a comparison with steel examples taken from the RMS TITANC. There were many shortcomings and the TITANIC steel post dated the Class C steel used in the carbons steel M1903 components.
Can you provide more specific information so I can look up this article. Title, author, date?
Many of the paragons of knowledge of firearms in the 20's and 30's ( Crossman and Whelan) decried any disparaging remarks concerning these early rifles. Col Whelan on many occasions recommended having a SHT/LN receiver re-heatreated by Sedgley when a barrel replacement was necessary, for Springfield Armory refused to rebarrel these actions. This despite the fact, that SA would replace the SHT/LN receivers free of charge. Col Whelan recommended that a writer who had one of the early M1922 gallery rifles,sent this action to Sedgley for re-heatreating and rebarreling to 30-06. As a matter of fact, SA early on would replace the bolts also but stopped doing this for many owners objected. SA then adopted the policy of replacing bolts on if requested to do so. The notice appeared an early AR, but I have been unable to find the article. I know that some will dispute this, but one day I shall find the article and post it.
As you have noted, these gunwriters were anything but objective. They became brand names through their association with US Army Ordnance Department. They are always promoting themselves and their value to the public is based on their association with the Army Ordnance Department.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/Col%20Townsed%20Whelen%20Catalog_zpsapyt7djs.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/M1903/Col%20Townsed%20Whelen%20Catalog_zpsapyt7djs.jpg.h tml)
This is an article similar to what you were referring to:
American Rifleman Dope Bag August 1932
Sedgley Sporter Receivers are Strong
I have a Hornet rifle sold by Sedgley. The bolt and receiver have been taken from a Springfield rifle numbered between 300,000 and 400,000. It is my understanding that Springfield receivers numbered below about 800,000 are very brittle. Please let me know whether in your opinion it would be worth while to have this receiver changed to a more modern one.
I would appreciate it if you can give any information as to about what size group should be expected from this rifle at 100 and 200 yards –H.L.H.
answer: It would not be advisable to change the receiver of your Sedgley Hornet rifle to the modern type of Springfield receiver as the expense this would involve would not be warranted by the benefit derived from the change. You will find your Sedgley receiver strong enough even in the .30-’06 caliber, as Sedgley heat treats these rebuilt receivers with his own process, and proof-fires them with cartridges giving 90,000 pounds pressure. Of course in you Hornet caliber your pressures never exceed 45,000 pounds at the most, and have a normal mean considerably less than that with factory ammunition.
With a Springfield rifle, it would be different as the receiver could be changed at a small expense at the Springfield Armory. In case you have a Rock Island Springfield of serial number below 285,000 or a Springfield Armory with serial number under 800,000, it has the old “brittle” type of receiver. When sending such a weapon into the Armory for a new barrel, the receiver will be changed to the new modern heat-treated type without extra charge. All arrangements for barrel work, or receiver exchange, must be made directly through the D.C.M. office.
I would say that with your Sedgley Hornet your could expect 4” groups at 200 yards with good sights and from good rest, and of course this would imply 2” groups of smaller at 100 yards.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/1932%20Sedgley%20Sporter_zps13itww4j.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/M1903/1932%20Sedgley%20Sporter_zps13itww4j.jpg.html)
If you notice, the Army author is warranting the quality of the Sedgley heat treatment. What the heck does he know other than what he has been told by Sedgley?. This shows the conflicts of interest Gunwriters have, be they Army or Civilian. They are always looking for free bees from manufacturer’s, are always looking for future commissions, and the magazine wants the ad revenue. Basically, they are sock puppets, repeating what they told by a Corporate Advertising Bureau. This also shows the incompetence of the author. Here, in this 1932 article, the writer spreads the fiction that burnt receivers can be reheat treated back to goodness.
Burnt metal can no more be made good through reheat treatment, than can burnt toast be made new by re toasting. Once steel is overheated, it is permanently ruined.
Incidentally, in this 1945 article, even though they won’t reveal just who is that “outfit in Philadelphia”, they confirm that all that Sedgley was doing was annealing single heat treat receivers. This removed all hardness and in time, the head space would increase, and cartridges would blow. The so called Sedgley heat treat was a sham. The 1932 author is proven to be a sock puppet with the hand of the Sedgley Corporation inserted up his ass and flapping his jaw. Sedgley did not make things better, they made things worse!
American Rifleman Dope Bag Oct 1945
“All old Springfields Weak”
A long letter written by gunsmith, R.E Simmons to Mr Ness, the editor of the Dope Bag, describes a SHT Springfield that had blown. This section was about midway:
:
“I just received a letter from George Vitt of the A. F. Holden Company. This company is one of the foremost heat-treaters in the United States and he says that they will not even think of accepting one of these old actions for reheat-treating. To quote him:
“The old Springfield receivers were made of cheap, almost plain, carbon steel, that was merely carburized and quenched. The type of steel used would not readily lend itself to good results from the best heat-treating practices, even though there are one or two outfits in Pennsylvania and elsewhere (Note: Sedgley was in Philadelphia) who advertise the so called reheat-treated Springfields for sale I would no more trust these receivers without making a chemical analysis and without testing them on the Rockwell machine that I would jump off the Empire State Building.
From the references I have, the reheat-treatment of these receivers amounts to the same thing as the so called double heat treatment that was practiced at the Springfield Armory prior to 1929 In other works neither of the two is much good for the reason of low-grade material used in the receiver” (End of Mr. Vitt’s quote)”
Mr Simmons, in a bridging section in his letter, states he had worked in the Ordnance Department during WW2 and that he had tested SHT receivers after rebuild with proof loads and Mr Simmons had not seen any break, making him skeptical about these receivers being structurally deficient, but he states
“it is best not to recommend these old actions for any of the more powerful loads”
“Incidentally, I noticed that you mention a well-known reheat job which is being done on these Springfield receivers by a well known firm. I wish to state that many of these old actions treated by this firm (which is like the one I sent you), are letting go in every direction. In fact, I personally believe these are about the worst in the bunch, because they simply softened the receivers, which would allow a very powerful proof load to be fired without any danger, but which allowed the bolt to gradually set back, increasing the head space dangerously.
Mr Ness, the editor of the Dope Bag adds a long section starting with this
“Comments: I agree with P.O. Ackley that the only good Springfield action is one made of nickel steel….
The attitude of the metallurgists is that the poor material in these Springfield actions makes any of the carbon steel variety undesirable, including those double reheat-treated at Springfield Armory in the series above 800,000.”
Ness was a book writer and had an independent income separate from the American Rifleman and did not need free bees from Sedgley.
The practice that Sedgley followed of annealing single heat treat receivers was verified in the May-June 1985 Rifle Magazine in an article titled : About Low number Springfields, Sedgley's and others The author was Hugh Douglas. Hugh talked to a Sedgley employee decades after Sedgley went out of business. The employee verified the statements in the 1945 Dobe Bag. Sedgley bought lots of rejected low number receivers and simply annealed the things. The "proof load" was a greased standard ball cartridge. If the receiver developed headspace during the "proof test", the barrel was removed, an extra thread cut, and an additional extractor cut 180 degrees from the original.
Notice too, that the only criticism of the US Ordnance Department is during the War years. I cannot find an article critical of the US Army Ordnance Department before or after WW2. After WW2 Gen Hatcher retired from the Army and took the reins of the National Rifle Association. Except for a brief period during WW2, until 1968, the NRA acted as a quasi Governmental organization. In 1968 the US Army repudiated the NRA and kicked it out of the Pentagon. If you notice, the NRA had a headquarter near the Pentagon, but once the military services repudiated the organization during the Vietnam War, the property was sold. Closeness was great for lobbying their buddies in the Pentagon, but once the cash dried up and their contacts went away, physical closeness did not bring financial remuneration from the Armed Services. Quite literally the advocates of aimed fire and the M14 became persona non grata during the McNamara years. However the property was extremely valuable, due to closeness to the Pentagon, and it was sold.
Cosine26
06-15-2016, 09:39
SLAMFIRE
I believe that this is the url of the article:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9801/felkins-9801.html
I failed to copy the original url but believe that this covers the essentials.
Those are not the examples that I remember but are close enough. Thee were many articles in the Dope Bag under Whelan that recommended Sedgley re heat SHT 03's. What really got to me was when he recommended that an early M1903 Gallery .22 (these were built on rejected M1903 receivers)[ maybe even a Hoffer-Thompson rifle] be sent to Sedgley for re heating and conversion to 30-06.
My experience with the M1917 described above convinces me that only the NS M1903's should be used with the heavy target loads. I am on the third barrel with my NS M1903 with no problems and I used in heavily in HP competition before converting to the M70.
FWIW
Doug Douglass
06-16-2016, 05:39
Scary stuff...I have a 100% orgional USMC 1910 that I will NEVER shoot....it's not worth losing a nice rifle and spending hours in the ER.
slamfire
06-16-2016, 08:11
Scary stuff...I have a 100% orgional USMC 1910 that I will NEVER shoot....it's not worth losing a nice rifle and spending hours in the ER.
It is best to be educated about the risks and decide for yourself about what to do with your low number Springfield. These things are a risk, I have explained the risks in a previous post. As a population you know 33% will fail in a high pressure event, and the service life of the things is uncertain. It is far easier to point out the risks of a population of these things than the risks associated with a single receiver. You might have a good one, relatively speaking. Even if properly made the receiver will be weaker and the service life will be less than an identical receiver made today of the same steels, and will be far less than an identical receiver made of modern alloy steels.
Based on my studies of the history of metallurgy, I don't consider highly any rifle built prior to 1920. The designs are good, but the processes and materials are going to be substandard. Based on my review of technical journals, metallurgy advanced quickly from 1920 to 1930. By the time you get to WW2 metallurgical science is mature and process controls are significantly better than they were in pre Vacuum tube days. I don't have the same concerns about 1930's receivers unless we know that the specific factory the part was made in was substandard. Which it could have been, quality was highly variable.
Based on the risk, I don't consider it wise to shoot a low number receiver and I am not particularly impressed with the double heat treat receivers either. I also don't know how advanced the factory process controls were in the 1920's up to WW2. I believe the Garands were well made and based on what I read, I think Springfield Armory was state of the art (1940's state of the art) during WW2. After WW1 all Army activities were underfunded, the production lines at RIA shut down, most of the people laid off at SA, so whatever condition the factory was in after WW1, I believe that was the technology they had till Garand production started.
PhillipM
06-16-2016, 01:54
Based on my studies of the history of metallurgy, I don't consider highly any rifle built prior to 1920.
P14, M1917, Remington model 30's are perhaps the strongest bolt actions ever made, and they were made before 1920.
In one American Rifleman or maybe Guns & Ammo they tried to blow up various bolt actions. The M1917 was found to be best of them all.
P14, M1917, Remington model 30's are perhaps the strongest bolt actions ever made, and they were made before 1920.
In one American Rifleman or maybe Guns & Ammo they tried to blow up various bolt actions. The M1917 was found to be best of them all.
Yes, the Model 1917 has quite a reputation for a rifle made prior to 1920. P. O. Ackley was the one who pioneered the testing on military actions. He actually found the Arisaka to be the strongest, fwiw.
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/long-gun-legends-p-o-ackley/2/
Some of the more popular chamberings for the M1917 have been 416 Rigby, 460 Weatherby, 358 Norma Magnum, 458 Lott. I have read A-Square Rifle Co. used the action to build a 460 Weatherby wildcat necked up to .500. It has performed admirably considering WWI technology.
However, according to Ferris, some Model 1917s blew up on the firing line during testing. The military attributed that to bad ammunition such is the case with many rifle failures.
Mauser Oberndorf, Danzig, Amberg, and Spandau; just to name a few, produced very dependable and fine rifles with early 20th century metallurgy.
Not all military, but let's not forget Winchester put together some fairly successful rifles pre 1920 as well, and some in large calibers.
Art
Cosine26
06-16-2016, 09:59
SLAMFIRE
I found the RIFLE magazine articles by Hugh Douglas with the postscripts by Dave LeGate. All very interesting. I had forgotten about these articles. For some reason I have two copies of RIFLE No. 99 confining these articles. I was an original subscriber to RIFLE and have all issued since No. 1..
I have a beautiful SA SHT bolt. I got it from an old time shooter who indicated that after NS M1903's were introduced, many of the old time shooters substituted the SHT bolt for the NS bolt because they were "slicker". I have dry fired it in my M1903 and it is slick-about as slick a real NM M1903. Even though I PROOf fired in an a Remington 03A3 with a heavy- I never fired it with live ammo.
I guess this is it. "None is so deaf as he who will not listen." Enjoyed the dialog and appreciated you inputs
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
06-17-2016, 02:12
Slamfire/Cosine26
Did either of you personally know Townsend Whelen? The corpus of Whelen's lifetime of work is very impressive Freebies from Sedgley? What freebies would those be? Whelen was well off financially. I can find no instance of Whelen stating Sedgley reheat treated "BURNT" receivers. I might also point out that testing has shown DHT 1903's to be very strong, not brittle, receivers.
Your info on SHT 1903's has been well presented in the past. There probably isn't anyone this side of Borneo that isn't aware of that fact. People who shoot them do so because they choose to, not because of a mistaken belief in their structural integrity compared to other rifles. You might want to investigate Hatcher's Notebook a bit further also. Pull the original armory failure analyses for each of the rifle failures (I did), and you will discover that Hatcher made more than a few errors transcribing the data to his notebook. In fact, there were very few receiver failures. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I believe there were more barrel failures than receiver failures, and at least one receiver failure was a NS (please correct me if I am mistaken). Your statement that there were many more failures before and after Hatcher did his study is unfounded in fact, and appears to be a personal belief versus demonstrable data.
There were burnt receivers, but I suspect not as many as you imply. If a SHT 1903 fails under pressure, she will grenade your torso. I don't argue that point at all. What does disturb me is that most of the failures I have read about in recent years can be traced back to reloading issues.
I have about 10% of the serial numbers of rifles used by the 5th and 6th Regiments at Belleau Woods. Only one is a HN. The serial numbers are in the 300,000 range for the most part. I have read every personal account written about BW I can find, borrow, or purloin, and not once have I seen an account of a 1903 blowing up. Shot in half, barrels fired until they burn the hands that touch them, and so on; but not a receiver failure. I am not saying there weren't any, but I can find no reports of same. These rifles had truckloads of ammo fired through them in 30 days in the most horrible of conditions, yet no failures reported. The LN 1903's seem to have served the Marines well, regardless of their present day reputation. Ditto the Greeks.
I would not recommend to anyone they should fire a LN 1903 (mostly for legal reasons); but the hysteria of the LN 1903's can be a bit ridiculous at times.
By the way, I think I would have liked Townsend Whelen had I known him.
jt
I agree with you JT. I also don't believe that the bolts where in question just the receivers. If I'm not mistaken John Beard also has said this of the bolts also.
clintonhater
06-19-2016, 09:18
...By the way, I think I would have liked Townsend Whelen had I known him.
jt
Knowing him was not essential to the adoration I developed in high-school by reading his column in Guns & Ammo, augmented later by reading his books, every one of which I eventually acquired, as well as the commemorative editions published after his death. (The latter publications demonstrate clearly the esteem in which he was held by tens of thousands of readers.) I also eventually acquired the issues of Rifleman which contained his "Dope Bag" pieces, and also his much more detailed articles from the teens and '20s in Outer's Book, which paid its writers real money, and was easily the best sporting mag of its time.
I can't deny I'm disturbed by the examples of "bad judgment" quoted above, but there's absolutely no reason to believe they were not rendered in good faith, expressions of what he then believed--mistakenly, we now know 80+ years later--to be true. What on earth could he have gained by "deliberately" misleading his readers, except a law-suit?
slamfire
06-22-2016, 02:18
Your statement that there were many more failures before and after Hatcher did his study is unfounded in fact, and appears to be a personal belief versus demonstrable data.
Deniers demand information, demand more information, they don’t merely move the goal posts out, they move them around! Around, and around, in circles, squares, triangles and spirals. Supporters of these single heat treat receivers demand information that these receivers blew before the list in Hatcher’s Notebook. Common sense would dictate that that given the same factory, same instrumentation, same process flow, same workers, that single heat treat M1903 receivers were blowing up from the beginning of production. In fact, the second receiver blowup, in Hatcher’s accident list, was made in 1907.
I would like someone to show that the blowups mentioned by Captain Keough are in Hatcher’s list:
11 August 1917 In Defense of “the Short Gun” Capt James H. Keough
…it takes but very little alteration to put the man behind the gun in a dangerous position, as I can attest, by having experienced the misfortune of blowing both locking lugs from the bolt of my service rifle in the 900 yard stage of the Leech Cup Match at Camp Perry, in 1913, which fortunately did me no more harm than to record a goose egg for my first record shot at this distance, forcing me from the match and putting me out of the running for the Palma Team. The shock of the blow-back had no serious effect on my nervous system, as I was well hardened to the echo of the boiler shop (as the shed in which the International Meter Matches were held was dubbed) by being a daily contestant in the several matches. On this same day on which this accident occurred at team mate, Col. Sergt. Leary, of the Massachusetts Infantry, had a similar accident, but was slightly bruised about the face. The cause of these blow-ups was attributed to the bolts being too hard or burned in the case hardening process. Last year at the annual encampment of the 6th Massachusetts Infantry, at Martha’s Vineyard, a blow back put a sergeant of one of the companies in the hospital for a week and nearly cost him the loss of one eye, and I know another case nearby when two bad accidents occurred in one afternoon, the rifles being blown to pieces in both instances and one of the men having the side of his face torn away. These are the only cases that I recall as happened in my locality or where I was at the time. Records of many others are well known, so that perhaps there is some cause for this alarm as to the safety of the Enfield*, which we all know is not as strong as the U.S. Magazine rifle; but I have not the slightest doubt that when our U.S. Ordnance experts have made the necessary changes that the modified Enfield will be capable of handling our U.S. ammunition with every degree of safety to the man behind the gun.
* Information had not reached the shooting community that the 1917 Enfield was a different action from the SMLE.
If you read these early 20th century magazines it becomes evident that readers of the things immediately wrote the editors of magazines about issues divined in the publication. Very similar to behavior we see in Gun Forums with the exception that the magazine editor shaped and formed the response. I believe after Captain Keough’s article the Arms and the Man was bombarded with letters from readers, each detailing similar blowups with M1903’s and issue ammunition. The Army responded to this blizzard of letters with denial:
Arms and the Man, Brig Gen Fred H. Phillips Jr 8/25/1917
Blown Blots and Split Barrels
Recently there have been reported from rifle clubs several cases where the barrels of Army rifles have burst and where bolts have blown out.
To those who are not familiar with the circumstances attending these accidents-none of which fortunately have cost human life- the mishaps have suggested that possibly the Springfield rifle is an unsafe arm, and that practice with it may be attended by fatalities.
The truth of the matter is that the Springfield is quite as safe as any high powered rifle, and possibly a much more reliable gun than one could expect from a weapon the charge of which exerts 50,000 pounds per square inch pressure in the chamber. The reason why one hears more of “blow-ups’ in the Springfield is that more rifle club members use this arm than use any other one make of commercial weapon, and consequently, in point of number, although not necessarily in point of numbers, although not necessarily in point of percentage, the accidents from the military type rifle may appear greater.
Emphatically the Springfield is not an unsafe gun. As it comes from the arsenal, it can be used year in and year out and so far as the likelihood of accidents is concerned, be as good as ever-but provide that it is properly handled and properly cared for.
If one takes the trouble to inquire into the causes of accidents with the Springfield, it will more than likely result in the conclusion that 99 our of 100 mishaps such as blown bolts and split barrels result either from the use of hand-loads or special loads improperly or carelessly put together in the making, greased chambers, or both.
In short, there nothing the matter with the Springfield as long as it is used for the ammunition for which it was designed, except of course in the very small percentage of cases where a bolt has been over hardened or some similar mechanical defect has crept in during manufacture.
Incidentally, this is the first documented example that I found where the Army is blaming blowups on “greased chambers”. The Army is of course, in denial. Instead of admitting they have a systematic problem within their Arsenals, the Army is denying that one exists. The logical is clear: perfect guns, perfect ammunition, therefore the problem must be the grease used on the bullets. It is a simple process of elimination.
In 1947, in Hatcher’s Notebook, Hatcher clearly moves the Army lack of temperature gauges on those rascally forge shop workers. You know, those forge shop workers who were suspicious of new technology making them redundant. Hatcher spins a tale where considerate Army management soothes the nervous nerves of those workers by not buying the latest technology. I am so certain that many readers of this post found their management so accommodating, so considerate of their feelings, that they were consulted well before they lost their job to an electronic device.
I also invite all readers to watch an interesting program : Forged in Fire. I like sharp pointy knives and this program has knife makers forging knives under unreasonable time requirements. The first elimination stage, the makers have to forge a blade that passes inspection. Frequently, very frequently, these experienced knife makers over heat their blades and the things show up cracked. It looks like they are heating the things by eye and due to time constraints, many blanks are overheated. It is my recollection that knives that were not obviously cracked at first inspection, have shattered in chopping tests. The judges flat out refuse to test any blade showing cracks. Recently I saw an episode where the criticality of quench media was proven. The knife maker firstly quenched his blade in oil, and to speed up the cooling to ambient, he did a finish quench in water. That water quench cracked his blade. He was eliminated.
Each knife maker gets a short autobiography at the beginning of the show, so these guys have years, some decades of experience. From what I have seen, it is easy to over heat steel and damage steel during quench. Considering the instrumentation in the forge shops of Springfield Armory and Rock Island Armory was human eyeballs, it is reasonable to assume that any part heated in these Arsenals would have similar issues to those knives forged and quenched during this program.
There are other sources that through Google books that have recently come available, and they provide enough information to confound the Hatcher morality tale that the low number rifle problem receiver problem was due to a few bad apples in the forge shop.
Report of Tests of Metals and Other Materials made in Ordinance Laboratory at Watertown Arsenal Mass, Fiscal Year 1918, War Department Document 901, 338 pp.
https://books.google.com/books/reader?id=iVfOAAAAMAAJ&num=13&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA25
I have copied a few of the Watertown summaries. Some maybe some are a duplication of those in Hatcher’s Notebook, I invite posters to point out the duplicates.
Examination of Receivers from United States Rifles Model of 1903, burst during Navy Target Practice
Conclusions:
One of the receivers was neither case hardened nor heat treated. It was in the perlitic condition as shown by the micrographs. The structure was very coarse.
Examination of United States Rifle, Caliber 30, Model of 1903, which failed at Camp Greene NC
Conclusions.
The receiver of this rifle had not been properly heat treated prior to being put in service. Microscopic examination showed the metal to be very coarsely crystalline and the structure was that obtained by cooling at a fairly rapid rate from a high temperature. The metal was very brittle under impact, as evidenced by its being readily broken when struck a light blow with a hammer.
Broken Bolts from United States Rifle, Caliber 0.30 Model of 1903
Object: The object of this investigation was to make a complete examination of these two bolts and if possible determine the cause of failure.
Conclusions: It is the conclusion of this laboratory that the failure of both of these bolts is due to the same factor. Both were very hard and brittle and their resistance to sudden impact was very low, as could be ascertained by securely fastening the metal in a vise and striking light blows with a hammer. the brinell hardess number on one of these was 430 and on the other it was 489. these structure of both was martensitic. This structure is characteristic of very brittle material
The chemical composition of these bolts is not within the specified limits with regard to carbon, manganese, and silicon
Investigation of cause of failure of United States rifle Model of 1903, No 108 448, which failed in target practice at Camp Shelby
Conclusions:
It is the conclusion of the laboratory that the failure of this rifle was due, at least partially, if not entirely to defective material composing the barrel. Chemical analysis shows the phosphorus to be 0.083, which is entirely too high and should not be allowed. The metal is very severely banded or streaked longitudinally, as shown by etching polished sections with Stead's reagent. Nonmetallic inclusions were present in considerable quantity and were greatly elongated in the longitudinal direction of the barrel.
The weakening effect of these streaks, rich in phosphorus and containing a large amount of nonmetallic inclusions is particularly apparent under shock. The brittleness under sudden impact caused by high phosphorus and nonmetallic inclusions, especially when in the banded condition, is without doubt the predominating factor contributing directly to the failure of this rifle. The metal of the receiver was very hard and brittle, as can be at once understood by observing micrograph 4215 at 500 diameters , which shows the structure to be martensitic.
A couple of issues fall out, and they are not as simple as a morality play that vilifies forge shop workers. Firstly, the materials they are using are inconsistent and don't meet specifications. . They evidently don't have an incoming material inspection nor a material certification of incoming materials. I know from historical sources that the materials of the age were widely inconsistent, and the chemical analyses by Watertown shows that. These are plain carbon steels with slag, inclusions, high amounts of Phosphors or Sulfur, and all of these defects weaken the end product. I remember Colt had a metallurgical department that performed chemical analysis of the steels from Colt vendors. These Arsenals don’t order steel in 10 pound, 20 pound lots, they order steel in lots of 100,000 pounds or more. We are talking about costs in the $250,000 dollars per order. Why did not Springfield Armory require a chemical test as part of the purchase order or do it in house? Heat treatment temperatures are based on the percentage of carbon in the steel and the heat treatment is specific to the carbon content. Improper carbon content results in a improper heat treatment, and the end result is a part with improper material properties for the application. Like too hard, too soft.
As to blowups after Hatcher’s list, well, this thread is about one. I have downloaded accounts of broken and blown single heat treats, none in Hatcher’s list, and I remember a post on the old Culver’s where a poster had independently created a list of single heat treat blowups, and if my memory was right, 28 blowups of double heat treat receivers.
Denialism’s strongest ally is ignorance. Ignorance proves their position. Such as demanding Army, Navy, Marine Corp accounts of M1903 blowups. Deniers constantly claim that lack of accounts prove that rifles were not blowing up. That is ignorance proves their position. I am going to say that the lack of records only indicates a lack of records. Also, in today’s Department of Defense, safety incident reports are only available to Safety Officers and Law Enforcement. You the public don’t have access to DoD safety incident reports and because of that, you are probably unaware of the things. What deniers don’t know, and won’t know, is that the Department of Defense has never been particularly interested in putting its dirty laundry out in public. This is also true for Corporations, for them it is a matter of liability. No records, no proof of liability.
Hillary Clinton understands the power of ignorance. I can say based on what I have read of historic diplomatic dispatches, the diplomatic messages of Ribbentrop, Molotov clearly show material that would have been classified at the time. We could also review the correspondence of more recent Secretary’s of State. However, when it comes to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who conducted all her correspondence on an unsecured electronic device, on her unsecure private server, not one existing email of hers is considered classified. Therefore, she has not violated the law, because it is definitely illegal for Government Employees and Contractors to send classified material over unsecure networks. Hillary deleted over 30,000 emails, before turning over the rest, to Government achieves. Hillary claims those deleted emails were personnel messages, cookie recipes, etc, all totally harmless. And since there is no record of those deleted messages, she could not have broken any laws about transmitting classified messages over unsecure networks. For Hillary, ignorance proves innocence. For deniers, ignorance is a very powerful ally.
But also, none of this matters to single heat treat fans. Nothing anyone can say or do will ever change their minds, but there are things they can do which might change their minds: shoot their rifles. I encourage all to shoot their single heat treat rifles, shoot them often, and shoot them with hot loads. A certain percentage of deniers will loose a hand, and eye, or even, half a face, and this is as it should be. I don’t know if this will make them a believer, but all injuries make an excellent case for the improvement of the human race through Darwinian selection.
However society has changed, the standard is no longer : prove it’s unsafe, the standard is prove it’s safe. Deniers need to make a case why shooting their single heat treat rifle, or any single heat treat rifle is safe.
Somehow, I just knew Hillary would make an appearance in this thread.
I am pretty convince the receiver action metal failed. The remaining pieces show no sign of bending, they are all shattered like broken crockery. The busted edges being completely crystalized.
I do not understand why threads on gun blow ups ALWAYS take on the same hostile and arogant tones, but they do.
In any case, there is one less custom 03 on the world. What you do with yours now is up to you.
Best of luck, all. Now can someone lock this thread down? There is no upside to more of this type of stuff.
firstflabn
06-22-2016, 06:10
Slam, I appreciate your research, but you ought to pick up a copy of Brophy's Arsenal of Freedom, containing SA's Annual Reports. It might cause you to rethink some of your conspiracy theories while providing support for your technical points. Here's a couple of clues, some pretty clear; others suggesting more research is needed.
1) In FY1900: "The temperature at which barrels were heated for rolling and for annealing has, by means of the pyrometer recently purchased, been somewhat reduced..." Thus, even before the '03 was adopted, the technology was there and it was being used in the forging temp range.
2) In FY1906 another pyrometer purchase is mentioned, this one for "hardening springs and other components of the rifle." Again, the technology was there.
3) FY1919 mentions a new pyrometer system. This may be the source of assumptions that prior to the controversy there was no system present. The tale of the old hands rejecting the "new fangled" devices is just BS. This description does say the new system provided "more dependable temperature control than was formerly in use." No surprise there, as progress marches on.
This leads to an aside. Carbon content also affects the temp at which burning begins to happen. Thus, I think there's plenty of room for a combination of varying chemistry and somewhat inaccurate pyrometers allowing receiver blanks to be burnt - even with the best of intentions. I would suggest that the early pyrometer problem was not in the device's accuracy but rather a lack of understanding of the temp variability in different parts of the furnace. Also, the wartime annual reports repeatedly mention drop forgers as one of the trades in short supply.
One speculative point based on science: the core temp of a blank could not be measured back then. Burning can take place in the center and the outside can be fine - so the eyeball method could be dead on, but the chewy chocolate center could still be burnt. Further, the temp at the center can be raised by more rapid cycles of the drop hammer (from friction). Again, an opportunity for inexperienced or hurried drop forgers to burn steel on the inside.
4) One last one from FY1924: they were etching their massive pile of left over barrel blanks to check for burning - which sounds like the modern way to check for burnt steel (but I can't be sure they had a complete understanding). It says they found 2-3% of barrel blanks in inventory were burnt. OOPS! As you'll see below, this is AFTER they started checking every lot for chemistry, so the burnt barrels came from overheating during forging.
5) One more, one last thing: FY1918 report says in describing their brand new metallurgical lab (which, of course, was part of the post-Feb 1918 fixes), "Chemical analyses are now made for all the steel entering components or tools." DOUBLE OOPS!! I guess this means they had no such procedure previously and just accepted suppliers' attestations.
I don't understand the possible interplay between overhardening from burnt steel and overhardening from improper heat treatment. The SA reports describe efforts in the '20s to rehabilitate pre-1918 receivers by using the double heat treatment methods. It is now known that the physical properties of near burnt steel (which also suffers from brittleness) can be improved with careful heat treating (heat treating is done 500 deg cooler than forging). Maybe the spotty improvement they saw was of the near burnt receivers. Too bad they didn't save their failures for examination using today's knowledge.
slamfire
06-22-2016, 06:46
Slam, I appreciate your research, but you ought to pick up a copy of Brophy's Arsenal of Freedom, containing SA's Annual Reports. It might cause you to rethink some of your conspiracy theories while providing support for your technical points. Here's a couple of clues, some pretty clear; others suggesting more research is needed.
Thanks for the lead, I will have to find the Brophy's book and read it. With more information, my conspiracy theories will of course change to fit the new content. :63:
Very interesting summary of events from your book. It was of course, very embarrassing for the Army to have produced 1,000,000 rifles that were so defective as a group, that in 1927 an Army board recommended scrapping the lot. I would like anyone to point out just when the Army made this known to the world. We know that in the middle of a shooting war they shut down SA and probably RIA, and yet, I cannot find that in the popular press of the period or even decades later. We find about that in 1947 when Hatcher writes about it. We also know that Hatcher was in on the ground floor of this, and if Hatcher knows in 1917, then Captain Crossman knows, Major Townsend Whelen knows, and I would like to know, just when did these gentlemen start telling the world about the suspect nature of these rifles? What where they saying between 1917 and 1927? What where they saying afterward?
Something I have not discussed to date is the ethics of the thing. We know, from Hatcher's Notebook that the 1927 board found that 1/3 of these single heat treat receivers would blow in an overpressure situation. Hatcher does not put a lot of time into this, but it would be interesting if the board determined just how many receivers would blow with standard loads. But anyway, the board was looking at a potential 333,000 rifles blowing up in service, with overpressure ammunition, if all the black holes in the universe happened to align. That is possibly 333,000 service men injured with these things, max. Of course the minimum number is a little harder to determine. The board probably thought that was unethical to expose their men to such risk by issuing known defective equipment. Army leadership thought otherwise.
So, does an employer owe the workforce a safe workplace? Is it ethical for an employer to require an employee to work in an environment where the probability of injury is high? Just how many injured Soldiers, Sailors, Marines is the ethical limit? Let say only 100,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Marines are injured compared with a possible maximum of 330,000, does that make it ethical to issue these rifles to the workforce? How many injured people must there be before it starts to trouble you?
Mind you, at the time the Services did not carry the cost of rehabilitation. If you were injured back then, they stabilized you, once you could walk out of the infirmary on your own power, you either resumed your duties, or you were discharged and were on your own. Free to find whatever employment you could missing that one eye, one hand, or a jawbone that was taken off when your rifle exploded in front of your face. Today, the Services are obsessively safety conscious because now, the money to fix Soldiers, Sailors, Marines comes out of their budget, and they have to budget for the lifetime care. But back in the early decades of the 20th century, it was simply cheaper to injure your workforce than to provide them with proper working conditions, safe tools, etc.
When people use the Army decision to hurt their force work as a justification to use these things, I would like them to justify that decision in terms of potential people hurt. Just how many people is it OK to hurt because their lives and health are worth less than a $40.00 rifle?
When people use the Army decision to hurt their force work as a justification to use these things, I would like them to justify that decision in terms of potential people hurt. Just how many people is it OK to hurt because their lives and health are worth less than a $40.00 rifle? Please remember, this was the tail end of the gilded age, that era when the rights of individual employees in industry... of military service, were simply not a big deal. This was the era when girls painted watch faces licking the brush they used to get good results. They then contracted cancer... of the jaw, etc. They were vilified as bad girls... loose, etc. suffering the consequences of their own immorality. Later it came out that the paint used was to blame. Guess there's no good way to to expose workers to radioactive junk... in the name of production. The girls still sickened and died. As to the soldiers... they'd been coming home shot up, broken, burned for years and years. WWI was nothing new and the aftermath for wounded veterans was nothing new. In my first pastoral appointment, I had a member whose husband came home injured by poison gas. He survived ... until finally just before WWII, he died due to complications from the gas. Like I said, people were looked upon as consumables. Puts the wage and hour laws, fair labor practices laws, etc. in a different light. JMHO. sincerely. bruce.
slamfire
06-23-2016, 05:15
It is now known that the physical properties of near burnt steel (which also suffers from brittleness) can be improved with careful heat treating (heat treating is done 500 deg cooler than forging).
I would like more information on this. I consulted several references on "burnt" steel. The ASM Materials handbook, several other handbooks, and a metallurgist. One technical book showed the results of reheating a burnt forging, showed the microstructure after numerous heat treatment cycles and concluded that the part could not be restored to new, or even acceptable condition. The ASM Materials handbook had a long section on forge temperatures and overheating steels, as a warning, but I found nothing indicating that burnt steel could be restored to new or acceptable conditions. The metallurgist told me that over heated steel is unusable because elements are burnt out. He said carbon, but that was off the top of this head. I would think that if you burnt the carbon out you would be making the steel closer to wrought iron and thus it would be softer.
So, where have you found information that burnt steel can be restored to either new, or an acceptable condition by reheat treats?
As for the SA reports that indicate pyrometers were around, if they were using pyrometers in the forge room, then why where steel forgings being overheated? Could it be that the pyrometers did not work, or that there were not enough of them around, or that they were not used in that application. The Watertown Report also shows that receivers got out of the Arsenal without being heat treated, which shows to me, a chaotic process flow where things get tossed into the production line and no one knows if the part is good or is bad. If you recall, Hatcher states that they knew they producing bad rifles so the Arsenal increased the proof pressures. This is something worth exploring because many readers of Hatcher's Notebook have this opinion that the purpose of a proof test is to blow the rifle up. I see this expressed all the time and it must come from Hatcher's Notebook and what the Army was doing prior to WW1. A proof test should not be a destructive test, it is usually a 30% over test. This percentage overstress is customary, but not unreasonable. Anyway it is usual practice, has been usual practice for centuries to subject firearms to an overpressure test, one that stresses the system, but not destructively. No rifle should come unglued with 30% over pressures, no firearm should blow up after being subjected to 30% over pressures. In fact, if any firearm blows up due to a 30% overpressure test than something is seriously wrong with the production line. I believe the idea that a proof test is a destructive test is a fallacious idea based around the confused and inept manufacturing behaviors practiced by the Army. If the holders of this idea thought about it, it sure does not make sense to operate a factory, buy all the materials and machines, pay the workers to produce perfectly acceptable rifles, only to blow each and every rifle into pieces at proof test.
However, at Springfield Armory they were blowing up rifles at the end of the production with the standard proof test. Now this is the important part, instead of asking themselves why they were producing bad rifles, investigate where they were producing bad rifles, and then fix the production processes so they would stop making bad rifles, according to Hatcher all they did was to increase the proof pressures at the end of the production, to, in effect, blow up more rifles. So you can see why people might be confused that the proof test is a destructive test, because that is exactly what the Army was doing: blowing up more rifles.
Now I can tell you that back then the acceptance procedures assumed a certain amount of bad product was going out the door. You can look at Mil Std 105 and the Acceptable Quality Limits (AQL's). Mil Std 105 is a very old military sampling plan and it assuming that there are a certain number of bad products in every lot. There are sampling procedures where, let's say, you take five widgets out of a lot of 200 widgets, and if 3 of the five are bad, then you pull out another five widgets out of the lot, and if 2 are bad, not 3, then the lot is accepted. But as the Quality Inspector, you know you just randomly pulled five bad widgets out of the lot and that there are probably a lot more left, but you accepted the lot for the Government. This sort of insane Quality Control acceptance tests would bankrupt a manufacturer in today's world. Today, if you are a supplier, you provide perfect parts. You provide them on time and each are perfect or you will find that the financial penalties levied by your customer, because you shipped them bad parts, will absolutely bankrupt your company. It is very important to read the details of your contract because Corporate entities who fork over perfectly good money expect perfectly good parts and supplies and the contract details the penalties to your company if you fail to meet expectations. Today, you either produce good parts or you go out of business. But it was not that long ago that it was perfectly acceptable to ship bad parts and you expected the Prime to sort through your garbage and figure which were good and which were bad. But for the Army not to go through their production processes and figure out why they were producing bad rifles, when they knew they were producing bad rifles, does not cast the organization into a forward leaning, progressive viewpoint. Rather it shows that they are in denial and really are not interested in putting forth the extra effort that it takes to fix their problems and make a good rifle. And the fact of the matter, from my research it shows, Springfield Armory was able to muffle and misdirect the problems with their rifles as long as the rifles blew up in the hands of Service Men and Civilians associated with military rifle shooting. It was not until two of their rifles blew up at a civilian cartridge manufacturer, an organization outside their sphere of control, and one that was also technically competent enough to call a spade a spade, and prove it to higher authority, that they were forced to address the problems with their production line.
If it had not been for National Brass and Copper Tube Company, Springfield Armory might have made 1,500,000 defective rifles instead of 1,000,000.
clintonhater
06-23-2016, 10:27
...if Hatcher knows in 1917, then Captain Crossman knows...
Hard to believe he did not, being THE small-arms technical authority in '17 I think even Hatcher would have acknowledged, and until his untimely death in '39; Whelen, much as I revere him, was by comparison but a talented amateur. Within the space of only two or three pages in Book of the Springfield, he dismisses failures of low-numbered receivers as irrelevant anomalies too rare to be of serious concern. (However, the '51 revision by armorer Roy Dunlap condemns them all, with 20 years' hindsight, as "unsafe.") Cover-up? No more brutally frank and absolutely un-cowable gunwriter ever lived, Elmer K. not excepted. So I'm inclined to believe that, in addition to being preoccupied with a multitude of other interests, he honestly did not regard these failures as anything but freakish aberrations unworthy of further handwringing. (His sincerity demonstrated by the low-numbers he continued to shoot.) One can be seriously mistaken without being party to a conspiracy.
PhillipM
06-23-2016, 11:11
Time has dimmed the memory but in 1987 I was in a welding, forging, and foundry class at Mississippi State University.
For the forging part, we had to make a chisel from hexagonal bar stock. We had to heat it up, chop it to length, form the chisel edge and temper it in such a way the point was hart as a whore's heart and it progressed to a relatively soft spot that the hammer struck.
The old professor said he selected the steel after reviewing the 400 most common steels. He picked the one we used because the tempering temperature could be determined by visual means. When the bar stock appeared to look like the mirage on a blacktop highway, shimmering, it was at the right temperature to remove it from the furnace, place on an anvil, and beat the crap out of it. When it went from red to black, we quit hitting it, in accordance with the axiom, only strike when the iron is hot, which means red, which means over 1000 deg F.
Once the chisel was roughly hammered out, and still red hot, it went to a bench grinder to fashion the chisel. Once the chisel point was formed we put it back in the forge till we saw "running water" visually and then hit it with the grinder to take the oxidation off so we could see the colors, purple and straw. I forget the specifics, but when the purple came, we dipped the point in the water quench, in and out. Then the straw color came and we quenched that area. Eventually we dunked the whole thing and prayed we did it right. The vast majority of us made a tool that passed the Rockwell tester on the C scale and we just had ONE time to get it right. No do overs.
The 1903 receiver is a complexly machined part with thick and thin areas I didn't have to deal with with my chisel. However, my chisel had to be hard on one end and soft on the other. At least a 1903 receiver only has to be uniform in hardness.
The forge we used was fueled by natural gas, it was as old as the hills, it was basically the size and shape of a 5 gallon bucket laying on it's side. The room had a lot of glass windows and fluorescent lighting. Looking in the forge for the "water" dancing on the steel, I can't imagine how a sunny or cloudy or thunderstorm day would have mattered one whit to me looking inside the 5 gallon bucket blazing with orange fire. From what I know, I'd call what we did a single heat treatment.
That's the sum of my forging experience, and I still have the chisel someplace.
firstflabn
06-24-2016, 07:50
Instead of buying pyrometers, workers were required to judge steel temperature based on their eyeballs.
In response to this, I provided facts to the contrary. Not finding those facts convenient, you dismissed them with a series of what-ifs. Further, you misread what I said about the near burnt temp range, then proceeded to argue against the misread statement. That's called a strawman.
In light of that track record, there's really no reason for me to take the time to present anything additional. Enjoy weaving your conspiracy theory/morality play.
slamfire
06-24-2016, 11:39
Further, you misread what I said about the near burnt temp range, then proceeded to argue against the misread statement. That's called a strawman.
Is this your problem?:, that I asked you question about this statement:
It is now known that the physical properties of near burnt steel (which also suffers from brittleness) can be improved with careful heat treating (heat treating is done 500 deg cooler than forging).
Well if I misunderstood what you meant, you might as well as addressed that instead of acting in a huff and retreating to your own angry fantasy universe about me and my intentions. I was wanting to know more about this and all I get from you is cant.
It is not even worth asking about how Springfield Armory or RIA or anyone in that period could determine whether a steel part is near burnt steel versus burnt steel. Or how the owner of a single heat treat receiver or bolt could with today's technology determine if their receiver or bolt is burnt or near burnt. Or how a near burnt steel part could be restored to new. Which is where I was going with my question. None of which was meant as an attack, it was a question.
Maybe someone else can ask you that, and get a reasoned response. This is something I have been asked, whether a single heat treat receiver could be determined to be good or bad and whether it could be restored to a good condition, and I provided what I have read and the sources I asked, and it is possible that they are wrong and maybe you found something new, something novel, something useful.
kragluver
06-24-2016, 12:49
In the first chapter of Mallory's Krag book there is an 1898 (I think) article from Scientific American that relates how Springfield had just installed their first pyrometers. I don't recall if these were being used in the forge shop or not. Also, in Ordnance reports dating from 1893, Springfield states that they had difficulties obtaining steel of sufficient quality for barrel and receiver manufacture for the Krags. Burst barrels were a common problem during proof testing. If I recall, these problems were resolved by 1898. I'm going by memory as I don't have my resources right here at work.
Is this your problem?:, that I asked you question about this statement:
Well if I misunderstood what you meant, you might as well as addressed that instead of acting in a huff and retreating to your own angry fantasy universe about me and my intentions. I was wanting to know more about this and all I get from you is cant.
It is not even worth asking about how Springfield Armory or RIA or anyone in that period could determine whether a steel part is near burnt steel versus burnt steel. Or how the owner of a single heat treat receiver or bolt could with today's technology determine if their receiver or bolt is burnt or near burnt. Or how a near burnt steel part could be restored to new. Which is where I was going with my question. None of which was meant as an attack, it was a question.
Maybe someone else can ask you that, and get a reasoned response. This is something I have been asked, whether a single heat treat receiver could be determined to be good or bad and whether it could be restored to a good condition, and I provided what I have read and the sources I asked, and it is possible that they are wrong and maybe you found something new, something novel, something useful.
Umm, I don't think the original OP's intention was to ignite the perennial LN debate.
That said I will inject a a bit of levity
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
PhillipM
06-24-2016, 11:14
That's was good texraid.
ditto!
Vern Humphrey
06-25-2016, 10:06
Read the guy's post and he said that 28 gr. load was 30,000 psi. If I owned a low number I wouldn't shoot it. I sure would not try a 30,000 psi load in it. The chamber pressure I remember having to learn in ROTC for the M-1 was 28,000....
I think you mis-remember. The correct figure is 48,000.
Vern, you are the one who misremembers. Griff is exactly right. I am "the guy"
Vern Humphrey
06-25-2016, 11:50
I think we're both wrong
SAAMI Pressures
Data from the current SAAM specs (2004)
Please note that some are in psi and some cup
SAAMI Rifle Pressure Specifications (Maximum Average pressure)
All Piezo measurements unless specified)
Cartridge Pressure (Max Avg) Cartridge Pressure (Max Avg)
5 mm RFM 37,000 .30-30 Winchester 42,000
.17 Rem 52,000 cup .30-06 Springfield 60,000
This is from the SAAMI site.
No, I loaded 28 gr of 5744 with a 220 cast bullet for 30,300 PSI. ThaT number is consistent among all the references for that powder and similar loads.
PhillipM
06-25-2016, 12:12
One speculative point based on science: the core temp of a blank could not be measured back then. Burning can take place in the center and the outside can be fine - so the eyeball method could be dead on, but the chewy chocolate center could still be burnt. Further, the temp at the center can be raised by more rapid cycles of the drop hammer (from friction). Again, an opportunity for inexperienced or hurried drop forgers to burn steel on the inside.
I highly doubt this. Burning by definition requires exposure to oxygen and there is no way the center of steel could be exposed to oxygen or be hotter than the outside exposed directly to the flame.
Vern Humphrey
06-25-2016, 12:20
No, I loaded 28 gr of 5744 with a 220 cast bullet for 30,300 PSI. ThaT number is consistent among all the references for that powder and similar loads.
But that's not the official maximum allowable average pressure for the .30-06. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) which is the official authority, lists 60,000 PSI.
Now, there is no formula to convert PSI to CUP, but from memory, the former standard was 48,000 CUP.
Vern Humphrey
06-25-2016, 12:24
I highly doubt this. Burning by definition requires exposure to oxygen and there is no way the center of steel could be exposed to oxygen or be hotter than the outside exposed directly to the flame.
"Burning" steel in this context generally refers to bringing it to a temperature where the carbon precipitates out, leaving the metal brittle. Re-heat treating doesn't work because it doesn't force the carbon to re-alloy with the iron.
PhillipM
06-25-2016, 02:36
"Burning" steel in this context generally refers to bringing it to a temperature where the carbon precipitates out, leaving the metal brittle. Re-heat treating doesn't work because it doesn't force the carbon to re-alloy with the iron.
In the example given, how does the carbon precipitate out and the outside remain unburnt? The inside cannot be hotter than the outside of a piece of metal heated from the outside.
Anyone that has grilled a steak knows this.
Vern Humphrey
06-25-2016, 02:54
In the example given, how does the carbon precipitate out and the outside remain unburnt? The inside cannot be hotter than the outside of a piece of metal heated from the outside.
Anyone that has grilled a steak knows this.
Nothing is actually "burnt" in the sense that a log is burnt in the fireplace. The carbon precipitates out throughout the steel, not just on the interior -- in other words, the metallic structure of the steel is changed to a mixture of carbon and iron, rather than an alloy.
The simplest way of determining the correct temperature for quenching steel is to test the hot metal with a magnet -- when the steel loses it's magnetic properties, it's time to quench. Heating beyond that point can cause the carbon to disassociate from the iron.
Vern Humphrey
06-25-2016, 02:58
This may help:
Steel is an alloy of iron and other elements, primarily carbon, widely used in construction and other applications because of its high tensile strength and low cost. The base metal, iron, is able to take on two crystalline forms, body centered cubic and face centered cubic, depending on its temperature. It is the interaction of those allotropes with the alloying elements, primarily carbon, that gives steel and cast iron their range of unique properties. In the body-centred cubic arrangement, there is an additional iron atom in the centre of each cube, and in the face-centred cubic, there is one at the center of each of the six faces of the cube. Carbon, other elements, and inclusions within iron act as hardening agents that prevent the movement of dislocations that otherwise occur in the crystal lattices of iron atoms.
Griff Murphey
06-26-2016, 07:35
I think you mis-remember. The correct figure is 48,000.
I had previously donned sack cloth and ashes for that goof on 6-09. I was thinking muzzle velocity 2800 fps. At least that is my excuse for brain fade.
blackhawknj
06-26-2016, 09:57
I don't have my copy of Hatcher in front of me but IIRC he found there were a few bad batches several years apart, the old story that the problem was due to new workers hired for increase wartime production is just a story. I have also read that Pershing insisted that his troops spend as much time on the rifle range as possible, it seems to me a lot of those LNs were worked hard. There was quite a controversy over the 7th round stoppage in the M-1 Rifle until Garand pointed out they had followed his design correctly.
. . . . . There was quite a controversy over the 7th round stoppage in the M-1 Rifle until Garand pointed out they had followed his design correctly.
Actually, armory workers did NOT follow Garand's design correctly!
The barrel boring in the front of the receiver went in too far . . . clipping the forward rib on the left side! --Jim
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
06-27-2016, 11:20
Slamfire
Who are these mysterious "deniers"?
Rather than give opinions of others, give the real time data. This is my collection of data. Do you know of any others by serial number? Note the descrepencies in Hatcher's Data from his notebook. My data came from the actual armory reports Hatcher used. Hatcher seems to have been prone to error.
jt
Failed 1903 Springfields
92 receiver failures
Jim Tarleton
#
Cause
SA
RIA
Date
Receiver Damage
Where/Why/How
Source
1
Bbl Burst
193825
February 24, 1908
CO D 28TH INF (BBL BURST)
SRS
2
Bbl Burst
35630
February 26, 1908
CO A 27TH INF (BBL BURST)
SRS
3
Bbl Burst
51514
March 23, 1908
CO A, 27TH INF - BBL BURST
SRS
4
Bbl Burst
17397
June 8, 1908
ILL NG (BBL BURST)
SRS
5
Bbl Burst
7918
November 19, 1908
ILL NG (BBL BURST)
SRS
6
25589
November 21, 1908
25589
93RD CO CAC (BURST)
SRS
7
Bbl Burst
10806
December 4, 1908
TRP G 2ND CAV (BBL BURST)
SRS
8
114866
January 23, 1909
114866
BURST DURING TARGETING
SRS
9
Bbl Burst
286305
June 5, 1909
DC NG (BBL BURST)
SRS
10
67521
March 29, 1910
67521
BURST
SRS
11
39816
April 15, 1910
39816
BURST
SRS
12
44855
June 7, 1910
44855
BURST
SRS
13
45248
June 8, 1910
45248
BURST
SRS
14
20923
September 25, 1910
20923
ILL NG (BURST)
SRS
15
114985
December 19, 1910
114985
14TH INF (BURST)
SRS
16
Burnt
89728
January 1, 1917
89728
Broke
Hatcher
17
Burnt
486640
January 1, 1917
486640
Broke
Hatcher
18
Ammo
573104
January 1, 1917
Bolt and lugs stripped
Hatcher
19
Burnt
UNK
January 1, 1917
UNK
Fractured Receiver
Hatcher
20
UNK
January 1, 1917
UNK
Broke
Hatcher
21
Burnt
UNK
January 1, 1917
UNK
Shattered Receiver
Haycher
22
Bbl/Obstrctn
138978
May 21, 1917
Muzzle blew off & bbl split entire length in 2 places due to obstrctn in bore
Hatcher
23
Ammo
656701
July 16, 1917
656701
Fractured Receiver
Hatcher
24
Ammo
312249
July 20, 1917
312249
Fractured Receiver
Hatcher
25
??
89720
August 1, 1917
89720
Burst receiver - Trp E 1st Cavalry
Hatcher
26
??
UNK
August 15, 1917
UNK
Burst Receiver
Hatcher
27
Ammo
223235
September 18, 1917
223235
Fractured Receiver - did not shatter
Hatcher
28
Burnt
UNK
September 19, 1917
UNK
Shattered Receiver
Hatcher
29
??
547854
October 8, 1917
Barrel blew off - previously classified as "UNK"
Hatcher
30
Ammo
573697
November 6, 1917
Bolt and lugs stripped
SRS/Hatcher
31
Ammo
632817
November 6, 1917
Bolt and lugs stripped
SRS/Hatcher
32
Bad BbL
108448
December 1, 1917
Barrel Burst - poor steel - 150th Inf
Hatcher
33
Ammo
278671
January 1, 1918
Backfired-Camp Shelby-repaired w/1917 bbl
Hatcher
34
Ammo
165282
January 1, 1918
165282
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby-unhardened
Hatcher
35
Ammo
224554
January 1, 1918
224554
Backfired-Camp Shelby
Hatcher
36
Ammo
225764
January 1, 1918
225764
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby
Hatcher
37
Ammo
239356
January 1, 1918
239356
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby
Hatcher
38
Ammo
239754
January 1, 1918
239754
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby-bad steel stock
Hatcher
39
Ammo
240914
January 1, 1918
240914
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby-bad steel stock
Hatcher
40
Ammo
253241
January 1, 1918
253241
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby
Hatcher
41
Ammo
262165
January 1, 1918
262165
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby
Hatcher
42
Ammo
445136
January 1, 1918
445136
Burst Receiver-Camp Shelby-bad steel stock
Hatcher
43
108448
January 7, 1918
108448
CAMP SHELBY (BURST)
SRS
44
Burnt
117794
January 17, 1918
117794
Brkn firing pin rod-premature exp-burnt
Hatcher
45
217794
January 17, 1918
217794
Fractured Receiver
Hatcher
46
486460
January 29, 1918
486460
BURST NAVY RIFLE
SRS
47
572301
January 29, 1918
572301
BURST NAVY RIFLE
SRS
48
572323
January 29, 1918
572323
BURST NAVY RIFLE
SRS
49
573528
January 29, 1918
573528
BURST NAVY RIFLE
SRS
50
573744
January 29, 1918
573744
BURST NAVY RIFLE
SRS
51
609
February 1, 1918
609
USN (Receiver failed)
SRS
52
Ammo
501719
February 20, 1918
501719
Failed
Hatcher
53
Bad Bbl
141157
March 1, 1918
Split barrel-Camp Bowie, Tx
Hatcher
54
Ammo/Brk Bolt
276691
March 17, 1918
Bolt face blown off due to ruptured case/excessive pressure
Hatcher
55
Bad Bbl
723664
May 1, 1918
Split barrel
Hatcher
56
??
200512
June 1, 1918
200512
Shattered Receiver-bolt & receiver shattered
Hatcher
57
Bad Bbl
658742
June 1, 1918
Burst Barrel
Hatcher
58
501719
September 17, 1918
501719
Failed in service
SRS
59
Ammo
222223
October 19, 1918
222223
Burst due to defective ammo-Bat E 139th FA
SRS
60
Bad Steel
662284
February 22, 1919
662284
RECEIVER BURST - bad steel stock
Htchr/SRS
61
662263
April 12, 1919
662263
RECEIVER BURST
SRS List
62
Bad Steel
666263
April 12, 1919
666263
Shattered Receiver - bad steel stock
Hatcher
63
Ammo
712363
May 1, 1919
712363
Fractured Receiver-shell casing blew out of rifle
Hatcher
64
Bbl Split
297591
June 4, 1919
Bbl split when blank cartridge fired behind bore obstruction
Hatcher
65
Ammo
101200
May 23, 1920
101200
Shattered Receiver-bad ammo
Hatcher
66
Ammo
203851
June 16, 1920
203851
Shattered Receiver-bad ammo
Hatcher
67
Bbl/Obstrctn
167204
July 19, 1920
Obstruction in bore-bbl burst
Hatcher
68
Bbl Burst
365338
August 6, 1920
CO E 23RD INF (BBL BURST)
SRS
69
Bad Bbl
608408
January 1, 1921
Barrel burst due to bad steel
Hatcher
70
Handload
177232
May 1, 1921
177232
Failed due to handload & SHT receiver
Hatcher
71
Bad Bbl
607222
June 2, 1921
Barrel Burst under rear frsb- poor steel - 150th Inf
Hatcher
72
Ammo
770160
July 13, 1921
770160
Shattered Receiver-excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
73
Open bolt/Fired
1215353
July 28, 1921
Hang fire allowed time to open bolt as it fired, breaking bolt/recevier not damaged
Hatcher
74
Ammo
70971
August 1, 1921
70971
Fractured Receiver-soft case & SHT
Hatcher
75
Greased ammo
UNK
August 12, 1921
UNK
Greased ammo-Philippine Rifle Team/receiver failed
Hatcher
76
8mm Rnd
UNK
November 24, 1921
UNK
Shattered Receiver
Hatcher
77
Bbl/Obstrctn
379004
January 1, 1922
Barrel burst due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
78
Bbl/Obstrctn
459881
January 1, 1922
Barrel burst due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
79
Bad Bbl
759943
August 16, 1922
Chamber blew out due to burnt steel in bbl
Hatcher
80
Ammo
146184
September 16, 1922
146184
Shattered Receiver-due to firing rifle grande
Hatcher
81
Ammo
946508
January 1, 1923
946508
Deformed Receiver & Bolt-excessive pressure
Hatcher
82
Bbl/Obstrctn
1093941
January 1, 1923
Barrel split due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
83
Ammo
234466
January 1, 1923
234466
Shattered Receiver-excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
84
Ammo
235742
January 1, 1923
235742
Shattered Receiver-excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
85
Bad Bbl
971779
January 1, 1923
Barrel failed due to a lap in the barrel
Hatcher
86
Ammo
104926
April 30, 1923
104926
Shattered Receiver due to very excessive pressure
Hatcher
87
Bbl Split
523089
May 1, 1923
Barrel split at chamber due to burnt metal
Hatcher
88
Ammo
642742
May 9, 1923
642742
Fractured Receiver due to excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
89
Bad Bbl
1254701
May 18, 1923
Barrel burst at chamber-burnt barrel
Hatcher
90
Bbl/Obstrctn
970762
May 23, 1923
Bullet was stuck in bore-split barrel
Hatcher
91
Ammo
284086
July 11, 1923
284086
Shattered Receiver from excessive headspace & pressure & SHT
Hatcher
92
Bbl/Obstructn
655360
July 24, 1923
No defect-obstruction in bore-barrel burst
Hatcher
93
Ammo
250560
October 27, 1923
250560
Receiver broke at barrel due to excessive pressure
Hatcher
94
Bbl/Obstrctn
335258
January 1, 1924
Barrel bulged due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
95
Ammo
625587
January 1, 1924
625587
Failed while testing ammo that blew up 2 RIA's
Hatcher
96
UNK
May 1, 1924
Bolt blown out-SHT-7th Cavalry
Hatcher
97
Bad Bbl
90101
June 1, 1924
Barrel ruptured due to seam
Hatcher
98
Ammo
UNK
August 16, 1924
UNK
Shattered Receiver due to annealed case & SHT
Hatcher
99
Bad Bbl
78745
September 8, 1924
78745
Split barrel due to pipe-receiver split also
Hatcher
100
Brkn FP
228112
September 15, 1924
228112
Fractured Receiver due to firing while closing bolt
Hatcher
101
Bbl Split
90489
October 28, 1924
Muzzle stuck in ground then fired, split barrel from rec to lower band
Hatcher
102
Ammo
642675
December 5, 1924
642675
Shattered Receiver due to excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
103
Bbl Split
1004623
January 1, 1925
1 1/2" crack over chamber in barrel
Hatcher
104
Rifle Grenade
468300
February 6, 1925
468300
Shattered Receiver due to firing rifle grenade
Hatcher
105
Ammo
195082
March 4, 1925
195082
Shattered Receiver due to excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
106
Bbl/Obstructn
613496
March 10, 1925
CO I 20TH INF (BBL BURST) - bullet in bore
SRS
107
Ammo
206331
April 24, 1925
206331
Shattered Receiver due to failed cartridge case & SHT
Hatcher
108
Bad Bbl
523444
May 21, 1925
Barrel blew apart due to burnt steel
Hatcher
109
Ammo
170805
June 5, 1925
170805
Defective ammo & SHT
Hatcher
110
Bbl/Obstrctn
146554
June 10, 1925
146554
Fractured Receiver due to bullet lodged in bore & SHT
Hatcher
111
Bbl/Obstrctn
858256
August 13, 1925
Barrel split due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
112
8mm Rnd
1198207
October 17, 1925
Firing pin rod blown out and floorplate blown off & stock shattered
Hatcher
113
Bbl Split
1201472
November 20, 1925
Barrel split firing tracers-defective bbl steel
Hatcher
114
Ammo
299458
November 27, 1925
299458
Shattered Receiver due to failed cartridge case & SHT
Hatcher
115
Bbl/Obstrctn
107317
January 1, 1926
Bbl bulged 50% due to obstruction
Hatcher
116
Ammo
84685
April 13, 1926
84685
Shattered Receiver due to excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
117
Bbl Split
735791
June 28, 1926
Barrel split due to defective steel
Hatcher
118
Frd w/Blt open
111621
July 1, 1926
111621
Shattered Receiver due to firing before bolt was closed & SHT
Hatcher
119
Bbl/Obstrctn
863426
July 11, 1926
Bbl burst near breach due to obstruction - receiver damaged
Hatcher
120
Exc Hdspace
173807
August 15, 1926
173807
Receiver split from rifle due to excessive headspace & SHT
Hatcher
121
8mm Ammo
43076
August 19, 1926
43076
Receiver shatterd due to firing 8mm ammo in rifle
Hatcher
122
Burnt
UNK
September 11, 1926
UNK
Shattered Receiver
Hatcher
123
Bbl/Obstrctn
UNK
September 11, 1926
UNK
Receiver failed - guard cartridge (unsrvcble) fired behind lodged bullet
Hatcher
124
Ammo/Brittle
204801
October 21, 1926
204801
Shattered Receiver firing guard cartridge/excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
125
Oil in Chamber
1216664
November 14, 1926
1216664
Oil in chamber/1921 Match Ammo/lugs set back/stock shattered
Hatcher
126
Bbl/Obstrctn
745779
January 1, 1927
Bbl split due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
127
Bbl/Obstrctn
186047
January 1, 1927
Bbl bulged & cracked to to bore obstruction while hunting
Hatcher
128
Bbl/Obstrctn
857791
May 7, 1927
Blew out magazine base, shattered stock, no damage to receiver apparent
Hatcher
129
Ammo
816284
May 23, 1927
Bolt head broken, magazine buldged, stk shatterd due to excssve pressure
Hatcher
130
Brittle Bolt
201595
June 1, 1927
Bolt blew out/brittle bolt
Hatcher
131
Bbl/Obstructn
600988
June 13, 1927
Buldged muzzle due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
132
Ammo
1248143
June 30, 1927
Floor plate blew out due to failed case head and bkkn bolt flange
Hatcher
133
Bbl Burst/Hndld
460371
July 1, 1927
Bbl burst 9" from muzzle from gallery handload due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
134
Ammo
874345
July 6, 1927
Stk shattered, buldged magazine due to failed case head
Hatcher
135
8mm Ammo
560852
July 13, 1927
560852
Shattered Receiver
Hatcher
136
Bbl/Obstrctn
16224
December 2, 1927
Bbl burst at muzzle due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
137
Open bolt/Fired
634479
February 3, 1928
634479
Shattered Receiver due to firing before bolt was closed due to broken firing pin
Hatcher
138
Avis Bbl Blew
1145956
May 25, 1928
Avis Bbl blew out at chamber
Hatcher
139
Bbl Split/Bad Ammo
467324
June 1, 1928
Bbl split due to bad ammo lot not authorized
Hatcher
140
Bbl/Obstrctn
500348
August 15, 1928
bbl buldged & split 9" from muzzle due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
141
Excessive Pressure
590480
August 15, 1928
590480
Fractured Receiver due to excessive pressure & SHT
Hatcher
142
Bbl/Obstrctn
267305
September 1, 1928
Bbl split from base to tip due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
143
Burnt Bbl
1137620
September 23, 1928
Bbl split at chamber due to burnt steel in barrel
Hatcher
144
8mm Ammo
801548
January 1, 1929
801548
Shattered Receiver due to firing 8mm ammo in rifle
Hatcher
145
235504
April 21, 1929
235504
Shattered Receiver
Hatcher
146
Case failure/pressure
951718
May 8, 1929
951718
Bulged receiver/broken bolt due to excessive pressure/case failure
Hatcher
147
Bbl/Obstrctn
235501
May 21, 1929
235501
Receiver ruptured due to obstruction in bore just ahead of chamber
Hatcher
148
Bad Bbl
1226267
June 1, 1929
Section of Bbl blew out due to improper manufacturing/burnt bbl
Hatcher
149
Bbl/Obstrctn
274272
June 1, 1929
274272
Shattered Receiver & bolt lugs sheared due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
150
Bbl/Obstrctn
723675
June 1, 1929
723675
Shattered Receiver & bolt broken due to obstruction in bore
Hatcher
151
73153
June 9, 1929
73153
Fractured Receiver
Hatcher
152
Ammo
73153
June 9, 1929
73153
Cartridge burst, causing receiver to fracture
Hatcher
153
Imp Assembly
326222
July 1, 1929
326222
Shattered Receiver-improper assembly & SHT
Hatcher
154
Ammo
87057
July 16, 1929
87057
Case failure, receiver had been bent subsequent to manufacture.rifle not hurt
Hatcher
155
Bbl/Obstrctn
119855
August 16, 1929
bbl split from muzzle to FRSB/obstruction in bore
Hatcher
156
Greased Round
711253
August 17, 1929
711253
Shattered Receiver & bolt due to grease on round
Hatcher
157
Bolt Blew/Bore Obstrctn
1255473
August 26, 1929
Bolt blown to pieces by obstruction in bore
Hatcher
158
Bbl/Obstrctn
1271923
September 3, 1929
Barrel burst at breech for 1 foot due to slag in bore
Hatcher
159
Bad Bbl
902871
October 29, 1929
Bbl blew out completely due to bad steel in manufacturing/burnt
Hatcher
160
Handloads
962540
August 15, 1965
Receiver had bolt lug imprint left from shooting handloads
CO Smith
161
Handloads
477779
May 10, 1933
Privately owned blew up w/52 r16 & 150 gr bullet, receiver separated with bbl
JB
John Sukey
06-27-2016, 02:33
All very interesting, but we did fight WW1 with low numbered recievers. I don't recall soldiers refusing to use the rifles.
Dang...! That's really good information! Thanks for sharing that!!!
blackhawknj
06-27-2016, 09:01
I note a number of burst barrels, obstructions in the bore, etc. And handloads.
I noticed the same. Also not so many Rock Island.
That is the best documentation I have ever seen, thanks.
About ten years ago Mike Petrov and I had a long discussion regarding his attemps to blow one up and one topic was the role bad ammunition and bore obstructions played in the early failures. That information quantifies it.
Conspiracy? I seriously doubt it, pure fantasy.
Some of you may be interested in the bathtub curve, which seems to apply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
Art
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.