Tweet
PhillipM:
It is possible that I misread the serial number, though I seem to remember there were 6 digits there, as originally posted - in any case, you definitely have a low-numbered 1903.
As to why SA and RIA didn't immediately change materials in the receiver and bolt, and go on from there, I think there are at least 2 good reasons:
1. There was nothing wrong with the low-carbon steel they were using - the problems were in the processing. The double heattreatment allowed continued use of the original material and resulted in the strongest and smoothest of the 1903s - better in both respects than Nickel Steel. Casehardening of such steels can produce excellent rifles, and it is worth noting that millions of 98 Mausers were made of essentially the same material as used in the 1903, but, because they were differentially casehardened, and apparently under better controls, they never suffered from the problems experienced with the 1903.
2. At the time the correction was made, SA was producing over a thousand rifles a day. They also had very large stocks of the materials on-hand, representing a large investment. By altering the forging controls and heattreatment, they were able to use the same materials to produce a rifle better than it had ever been, and avoid complete shutdown of both production facilities. In wartime, nickel becomes a very important strategic material, and, even had it been decided to change-over to that material during the war, there would have been unavoidable delays in obtaining the steel. Further, the nickel steels are more expensive, another factor in wartime production.
As to why SA didn't stop production, and why some SHT receivers were assembled after the decision was made to change the processing, I think the scale of production accounts for that. With over a thousand rifles being assembled every day, there were much larger numbers of receivers (and other parts) in various stages of production all over the Armory's facilities. Since they didn't stop production and destroy everything made but not yet completed, it would have been surprising, indeed, if some such intermixing had not occurred.
If, as you say, the theory is not your own, but very well informed - whose is it, and on what information is it based?
I believe that every one of the topics we've discussed here is covered by Hatcher, and I don't know of any other source document which contradicts what he had to say.
mhb - Mike
It is possible that I misread the serial number, though I seem to remember there were 6 digits there, as originally posted - in any case, you definitely have a low-numbered 1903.
As to why SA and RIA didn't immediately change materials in the receiver and bolt, and go on from there, I think there are at least 2 good reasons:
1. There was nothing wrong with the low-carbon steel they were using - the problems were in the processing. The double heattreatment allowed continued use of the original material and resulted in the strongest and smoothest of the 1903s - better in both respects than Nickel Steel. Casehardening of such steels can produce excellent rifles, and it is worth noting that millions of 98 Mausers were made of essentially the same material as used in the 1903, but, because they were differentially casehardened, and apparently under better controls, they never suffered from the problems experienced with the 1903.
2. At the time the correction was made, SA was producing over a thousand rifles a day. They also had very large stocks of the materials on-hand, representing a large investment. By altering the forging controls and heattreatment, they were able to use the same materials to produce a rifle better than it had ever been, and avoid complete shutdown of both production facilities. In wartime, nickel becomes a very important strategic material, and, even had it been decided to change-over to that material during the war, there would have been unavoidable delays in obtaining the steel. Further, the nickel steels are more expensive, another factor in wartime production.
As to why SA didn't stop production, and why some SHT receivers were assembled after the decision was made to change the processing, I think the scale of production accounts for that. With over a thousand rifles being assembled every day, there were much larger numbers of receivers (and other parts) in various stages of production all over the Armory's facilities. Since they didn't stop production and destroy everything made but not yet completed, it would have been surprising, indeed, if some such intermixing had not occurred.
If, as you say, the theory is not your own, but very well informed - whose is it, and on what information is it based?
I believe that every one of the topics we've discussed here is covered by Hatcher, and I don't know of any other source document which contradicts what he had to say.
mhb - Mike
Comment