Article: Safety of Reactivated Drill Rifles

[bigskybound]

I am very, very new to this and do not have enough knowledge of metalurgy to form an opinion on this article. Any thoughts?

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Gibbs-...irginia-591086

[Rick the Librarian]

All I know is that it is going to be like discussion on low numbered rifles - a number of people on each side with strong opinions. One thing I will say is that probably the firms that sell them wouldn't do so without 1) a lot of testing and/or, 2) A very large liability insurance policy.

I, personally, would not buy or use a "restored" drill rifle anymore than I would shoot a low-numbered M1903, but that is my personal choice.

In reading the report, it appears to be a complaint by a consumer, rather than a specific safety concern. The writer appears to be basing his opinion on specific concerns that have been voiced on this and other forums; some people agree with them and some don't.

[jgaynor]

This report is three years old. Probably be a good idea for anyone who is interested to Google "Ripoff Report" and any owners/management to see what pops up. I think its telling that writer is not claiming any real loss or injury.

Regards,
Jim

[Col. Colt]

This is very similar to the low number controversy, very much a matter of "it depends". It is telling that neither the author of the report nor any of his sources volunteered any documented physical evidence of the concern or a credible account of a reactivated US Military rifle "exploding" on an end user, and causing harm to him/herself or any bystanders. Since many thousands of these rifles have been "reactivated" and are readily found in gun shops all over the United States, where are the actual cases of harm? ONE Lawsuit award would be enough to shut down most of the companies mentioned. Are they still in business?

I have examined a couple of drill rifles so altered, and both the ones I looked at had a single small bead of weld attaching the barrel to the bottom front of the reciever ring, along with a much larger and uglier blob of weld that secured the cutoff to the reciever. I find it hard to believe that the small weld at the front took more than a second or two to apply. Are the concerned parties saying that that was sufficent time to heat the reciever all the way back to the locking lugs and ruin the temper of the steel? Or that the heat from the cutoff welding somehow migrated all the way to the front ring? Or does running electricity through steel anneal it in some way I have not heard of?

My point is, the rifles that might in fact be dangerous from the heat of welding ruining them would be immediately obvious - due to a large, deep weld - and instantly passed on by any reasonable person who wanted to reactivate it - either for his/her personal safety - or the avoidance of potential liability to their company.

Are there some marginal recievers out there? It would seem possible to even likely that a few exist, due to a lack of "grading standards" in the selection process. And CMP certainly has a vested interest in calling them all "wall hangers" to protect themselves legally. But with judicious selection - I am sure the vast majority of "reactivated drill rifles" will, like the majority of Low Number Springfields that are still fired by their owners, continue serving without incident.

Does anyone have any "blowup" reports that can be verified? I have heard two reports (Internet, not documented) of reactivated recievers stretching fairly quickly, resulting in excessive headspace and retirement - but no blowups. And I am satisfied enough, that after examining the issue myself and talking to the owner who reactivated it, that I recently purchased a 1.3 Million Springfield Armory reactivated reciever that had already passed the 300 round mark without any problem or headspace growth. I will check it regularly and advise if anything changes, but I really think this is another tempest in a teapot. The bad ones LOOK bad - and are parts souces. The rest are likely usable, if not pretty.

Please enlighten me if I am wrong - but with actual evidence, not conjecture and "nervous Nellieism". CC

[bigskybound]

That's why I come to these forums when I start to wade into unfamiliar waters. I am finding quite a deep well of knowledge here. Thanks!

[Dave in NGA]

To date I've 're-activated' seven of these rifles. All of them hand picked at the South store for their minimal welds. Two of these rifles are the case hardened Reminton A3's and the other five are high number nickle steel SA's.

Several are done up in faux A4 style with modern scopes and the other are just redone in military configuration. All are good shooters and have been shot enough that I'm confident they are safe to fire. None of my rifles have been disguised to obscure their origins as 'deactivated' rifles.

If you are interested in why I did this it's because I'm a retired engineer with a machine shop at home and knowledge enough to do the job. As to the heat treat / metallurgical condition of these actions. I'm comfortable with my 30 plus years of heat treat experience in the metal working industry.

Your results may vary and I would not recommend this project for the home handyman. I am curious as to acceptance rate some of these commercial sources are experiencing in selecting their actions. Based upon my experience I would guess there is likely to be a 30-40% drop out rate of unsuitable actions.

Let the flaming begin!

[p246]

Both of mine are at 100 rd counts with no head space issue. One of my mentors build one with a round count of over 400 and his reloads run 2700fps using 168 grain AMAX so he's not taking it easy by any means.

[Weasel]

Reading some BS in this story. High # 03's, Remington 03's, 03A3's and A4's are not carbon steel.

[mhb]

However...

the DHT high-number 1903 actions are, in fact, carbon steel - the heattreatment was changed, not the material. The change-over to nickel steel occurred somewhat later, so there are substantial numbers of carbon steel high-numbered rifles. FWIW, they are considered by many to be the strongest and smoothest of all the 1903s.

mhb - Mike

Reading some BS in this story. High # 03's, Remington 03's, 03A3's and A4's are not carbon steel.

[Rick the Librarian]

Mhb is right - the composition of the receivers was not changed until later. Roughly SA s/n from @ 800,000 to @ 1,289,000 was carbon steel - most of those afterwards were nickel/steel; RIA receivers from 285,507 to about 319,000 were still carbon steel, but the improved process.

[chuckindenver]

hmmm.
without really stirring up the turd soup..
i think, the real issue with the rip off on these sold by some 20 companies...is the fact they avoid just telling the buying public what they are..and how they were made back into a rifle.
they go as far as painting over the damage..though i doubt its to hide anything, more of a cheap coating..
as for safety on 1903A3 recovered drill rifles.. hmmm.
ok, well, if the weld is small, and whoever did the cutting and grinding has some sort of skill , then,..i belive they are just as safe as any 1903A3 on the shooting line.
however,
its been my observations on the work done to {some} of these, that large gaps in the face to shoulder, to the face of the receiver being ground down so far that a barrel over indexes by a half an inch. av seen some with the receiver ring crushed so bad that a bolt wouldnt feed after a barrel was installed...
now, Aim did make good on these issues by exchanging them..
however.
one SC action that i personally sent back for exchange...2 mos later came back to me through another customer..WTF? if its not spec...DONT SELL IT!..so i sent it back again...along with a nice note...hoping that it doesnt come back to me again...as maybe a lawer would have better luck with getting that POS cut in to bits???
understand that the great deal of these were sold from or through Gibbs, AKA Navy arms, search or ask about that history..and it will open your eyes..
another deal..
i had an over seas customer that wanted me to build 10 1903A3s in non military cals, and wanted to use the U.S. G.I. 1903A3s being sold..i told him what they were...he agrued that they wernt..i said, ok..ill call...
so i called...and i flat out asked. are these recovered drill rifles, answer was....im not sure...ill have someone call you...they did...the didnt know..really?
so i called my customer..he said he wanted them...ok...and wanted to use another smith...fine...
he calls me 6 mos later..and says....you were right...and he is mad at the other smith, and Gibbs...ok...well....i told him the truth from the start...so..he was looking for a chearing section, not facts..
since the rifles were recovered drill rifles.. the Spanish proof house would not proof mark said rifles...and returned them back..
now..how they actually proof these..is a drop test...thats it...no firing of live rounds is done...they work the bolts, check the cal, and cock the weapon. drop it from 3 meters, and see if it goes off...
they wouldnt do any of those tests,,,
funny...now they sell them through a importer to collectors in Spain, so...id bet that someone was paid off along the line to get it done..
do i think they are safe???yes, if the person that does the recovery is skilled, and has some since.
no, if the person has no skill and has a heavy grinder hand...
drill rifle bolts should NEVER be re used...ever...no matter how rare or cool they are...they are junk and make a nice wind chime.
2 of my personall favorite shooters are recovered drill rifles...and yes, i have proof tested one...i loaded 45 Grains of H110 behind a 190Grn bullet. tied it in a tire and with a string behind my truck...pulled the switch...the back of the case melted into the bolt face, and i had to beat the bolt open...no damage to the 1903A3 action at all...i installed a new barrel. and bolt...and 10 years later, iv shot well over 1000 rounds through this rifle..and never an issue..
but..im the one who recovered the rifle, and did it right...

[1mark]

Well Michael — Salem New York who penned the articular 3 years ago has no proof or data to support his theory. His spelling and word phrase is something that should be reported. And the "Ripoff Report" just publishes what anyone will write? There are no checks, no one is checking the accuracy of the reported reports?

[Rick the Librarian]

I find myself in almost total agreement with Chuck - you don't find any mention of these receivers' origins in the advertising for these rifles. Nobody has really satisfactorily answered that.

In the case of M1903A3s made from these "recovered" receivers, the price puts them at or even above decent shooters made from "normal" receivers or overhauled rifles.

[Weasel]

the DHT high-number 1903 actions are, in fact, carbon steel - the heattreatment was changed, not the material. The change-over to nickel steel occurred somewhat later, so there are substantial numbers of carbon steel high-numbered rifles. FWIW, they are considered by many to be the strongest and smoothest of all the 1903s.

mhb - Mike

Springfield nickel steel # started at 1275767, Rock Island at 319921. All Remington 03,
A3's and A4's were Nickel steel. All Smith Corona's were Nickel Steel. That should clarify what I said.

[Kurt]

Regarding drill receivers safety is more a question of who did the recover than the issue of being a recovered drill rifle. Knowing and trusting the person would alleviate any concern, not would be my line in the stand.

Just my 2 cents worth

Kurt