SA 6-13 Blow up!

[chuckindenver]

if you put the barrel in a freezer over night, the obstruction may come out easy..and then again, it may not.
depends on what you plan on doing with it.
i collect blown up and damaged weapons, and the pictures..some storys that go with it.
if it were mine, id remove the obstruction, to see what it is, likely its the bullet from the round that failed, rather then an one shot on top.
and leave it complete for display.
high pressure rounds shot onto a squib, usually have much more barrel damage...i have many many pictures of rifles shot with a pugged bore, and they all resulted in total barrel destruction.
this is the sign of a classic case head failure.
and as iv said many many times. any weapon can suffer a case head failure, even a new modern rifle.. its all in how the steel handles this failure, this one dodnt handle it very well, id like to see the bolt, and find out if the shooter had any injury..thanks for sharing..i posted this in my collection of failures..
these are great tools for education of shooters. handloaders and younger hunter, shooters.
im guessing.
a over loaded, or loaded with pistol powder hand load did this damage, as well as an over sized primer pocket...
forcing a 8mm Mauser would also do this damage..

[chuckindenver]

the Winchester M70 is a bore obstruction fail, 7mm Mag. lodged with dirt and mud from falling.
the 1903A3 is a Nat Ord, that suffered a case head failure with factory ammo, iv held both weapons.

[Fred]

Is that hole in the top of the barrel threading from tapping too deep for a mount? If so, then the case would've blown a perfect hole there and then if so, could the escaping gasses have been caught up within the threading between the receiver and the barrel?

[Kurt]

It's called a Hacker hole Fred...lol

[slamfire]

If the receiver failed during firing you would expect the case head to fail as there is nothing supporting the case head. Either way, what failed first, the case head or the receiver, these receivers were known to be brittle and what you see is an example of a structurally deficient receiver breaking. If it was properly made it would have held its integrity case head failure or not.

The actual number of 03's that failed because of heat treating was very low if I am not mistaken. Like in the 10-20 range.

The heat treat of the period was primitive, simply heating it up and a quench. Given the erratic heat treatment response of plain carbon steels, some were going to come out too soft and too hard. But the most likely cause for the brittle nature of 03’s was overheating of billets in the forge shop. The US Army was too cheap to install pyrometers even though pyrometers were available. There also might have been a perverse incentive at play: if they paid the forge shop workers piece rate, then it would have been in their financial benefit to heat the billets as hot as possible as they could stamp out more forgings.

At the time, from the Man at Arms, shooters were being told that there rifles were bursting because of "too much case hardening". Which also could have been true. All of this tells me Springfield Armory was a ship that leaked from all seams. What you have is a military arsenal lacking in process controls and the management of which, was out playing polo on the parade grounds, and not managing their factory.

All of the failure data for 03’s comes from Hatcher’s Notebook which is not an all inclusive list of low number failures. Safety incident reports are not released to anyone but Safety Investigators and Law Enforcement, but Hatcher was Chief of Ordnance and might have got his partial list then. But, the list ends in 1929 and there are known low number failures in the 30’s from pictures at Springfield Armory. There are accounts of blown 03’s prior to Hatcher’s list. Any attempt to calculate failure rates or counts from Hatcher’s list will be wrong because the database is not complete.

[John Beard]

The pictures depict receiver damage that is absolutely inconclusive. One can acknowledge from the photos that the steel in the receiver had a crystalline structure that would be prone to shatter when struck or overstressed. But one can draw no conclusion that the receiver was unusually weak or failed without provocation.

Substantial evidence indicates that the receiver was clearly overstressed. The overstress could have been caused by an obstructed or clogged bore, or an overcharged cartridge. Although the receiver shattered and the top half likely went flying harmlessly through the air, the bolt held on the safety lug as intended and did not strike the shooter's face. The shattered top receiver ring relieved the overpressure condition and likely reduced the amount of high-pressure gas blown into the shooter's face.

Although a double heat treated receiver would not likely have shattered in such a spectacular manner, one can reasonably assume that it would have bulged and the magazine would have shattered, sending splinters flying into the shooter's arm. And since a double heat treated receiver would have held together, a lot more high-pressure gas and cartridge case fragments would have been channeled and blown directly into the shooter's face.

I do not recommend shooting low number rifles. But if I had been holding that rifle when it went off, I would have been glad that it was a low number instead of a high number!

J.B.

p.s.,

My comments pertained to the pictures in the original posting on page 1, not chuckindenver's posting.

[Fred]

John, What was the cause of the hole in the top of the barrel threading? Rear scope mount hole that was drilled all of the way through?

[Dave in NGA]

John Beard touches on a possible clue to factors leading to failure. The crystalline structure as measured by the Sheppard Grain Fracture Scale appears to show a possible problem. When hardened steel is stressed to failure the resulting fracture zone can show indications of possible heat treat issues or even structure or alloy variations that are detrimental to function. If I had the use of my metallurgical lab from my days at Fafnir Bearing I could tell quite a bit from an examination of a failure such as this.

[jgaynor]

the hole may well be from a scope mount but it's also from a different rifle than the one belonging to the OP so it's sort or irrelevant to this thread. The rifle with the hole had a cast receiver not unlike the body of a hand grenade.

[chuckindenver]

i posted those pictures to show what the different types of failure look like...rather then everyone just guessing , being a collector blown up weapons and the stories behind them,
iv seen and held more then most id say, from fire damage, obstructed bores, over loaded, to the wrong ammo forced in the weapon..
my point again...the OPS rifle is most likey from a case head failure, hot gasses were pushed back into the action, and the shown damage is the result,
the history of the 2 weapons is a moot point, as the pictures were posted to show the differences in damage from a case head and bore obstruction...that was it.
single or double heat treat...any can and have failed from a case head failure, iv seen Double heat treat, and nickle steel fail just as bad.
until we find out if the OPs rifle was indeed a SHT 1903...any comments would be a guess at best

[John Beard]

the hole may well be from a scope mount but it's also from a different rifle than the one belonging to the OP so it's sort or irrelevant to this thread. The rifle with the hole had a cast receiver not unlike the body of a hand grenade.

Jim,

There's nothing inherently wrong with cast receivers. If there were, Ruger, Springfield Armory, Inc. (M1A), and a host of other gun manufacturers would be in "a world of hurt!"

J.B.

[jgaynor]

Jim,

There's nothing inherently wrong with cast receivers. If there were, Ruger, Springfield Armory, Inc. (M1A), and a host of other gun manufacturers would be in "a world of hurt!"

J.B.

Right you are John! It's all in the execution.

Regards,
Jim

[chuckindenver]

just about all major rifle makers use cast steel.. however,. Nat Ord didnt use the same quality of cast steel...

[mwt]

proper use for Nat Ord. receiver

http://tinypic.com/a/2ukk1/2

[chuckindenver]

proper use would be scrap...