What to fire in a LN receiver

[Rick the Librarian]

Rick, I've got your former rifle's slightly "younger brother" - #477541 - also an NRA Sales rifle. Never have and probably won't shoot it.

[Plain Old Dave]

Read the entire thread, and have a couple thoughts.

The biggest issue with LN 1903s is what happens when (not if) you have a case failure and 50K PSI gas gets about in the action. The double heat treat receivers will let go, too, but they won't grenade like LNs will. The steel is brittle in the LN receivers due to the inconsistent TLAR heat treatment; some were burned and others weren't gotten hot enough. The following link explores the problem from the vantage point of a medical doctor trained in epidemiology:

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

I concluded a while back that the US replaced a fine magazine rifle (the Krag) with one that simply had capabilities beyond present metallurgy for reasons of political expediency; Elihu Root used the "slow firing Krag" controversy to cover his revolutionary changes in the War Department. The down side is the US did not have a shoulder arm superior to the Krag until fairly late in the 1920s and the adoption of nickel steel recievers for the 1903 to solve the receiver failure issue and M1 Ball to solve the jacket fouling issue, which IMO at least contributed to receiver failures along with Mobilubricant. Both increased chamber pressure and therefore bolt thrust and stress on cartridge cases, increasing the probability of cartridge case failure and receiver failure in single and double heat treated 1903s.

Bottom line here is there are plenty of Nickel Steel receiver 1903s to shoot and no real reason to shoot a low number 1903.

[Rick the Librarian]

This may be starting a discussion which drifts away from the original purpose, but here goes:

I would disagree that the Krag was superior on several points:

1) Lack of a magazine charging system. One account I read of the S/A War said you could follow American units in action by the cartridges dropped trying to reload their rifles.

2) The Krag could not "support" a truly powerful cartridge

3) The 24' barrel of the M1903 was much more handy for the infantry and removed the need for a cavalry carbine.

4) The "thin" part of the stock around the Krag magazine was subject to constant breakage.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....The down side is the US did not have a shoulder arm superior to the Krag until fairly late in the 1920s and the adoption of nickel steel recievers for the 1903 to solve the receiver failure issue and M1 Ball to solve the jacket fouling issue, which IMO at least contributed to receiver failures along with Mobilubricant. Both increased chamber pressure and therefore bolt thrust and stress on cartridge cases, increasing the probability of cartridge case failure and receiver failure in single and double heat treated 1903s.
Bottom line here is there are plenty of Nickel Steel receiver 1903s to shoot and no real reason to shoot a low number 1903.

I find it amazing that you would shoot a Krag but not a LN 03. I consider the Krag the most dangerous (to shooter) of all milsurp rifles. The 03 proved itself in WWI beyond any reasonable doubts. Where was the Krag?

jt

[Plain Old Dave]

Firstly, in Springfield Armory's testing conducted postwar between 1893 Spanish Mausers and Krags, no significant difference was found in sustained rate of fire.

Second, the .30 Krag is a virtual ballistic clone of the .303. A record holding elk that for decades was a biggest killed in North America was killed by a rifle chambered for .30-40 in 1899, and as late as the WW1 era, Townsend Whelen recommended the 30-40 for grizzly.

Third point, maybe. This was addressed with the Board of Ordinance and Fortifications rifles just the same.

Fourth point in period reports was attributed to improperly seasoned wood, and most of the reports came from China in the Boxer Rebellion.

In 30+ years, I have never even heard of a catastrophic Krag failure. There are several pictures of just that with 03s on this thread alone.

Is the 03 a better rifle than a Krag? With a nickel steel receiver and ammo that postdates the M1 Ball change, yes. I will stay with my assertion, though. The low number 1903, especially with lower quality ammunition, is an inferior arm to the Krag.

[Rick B]

and with all this above I can show 20 fold M1A and Garand receivers that have failed and they have not been around as long as all the 1903's out there that are not exploding. Point being the Hype is there and people run with it. One guy runs around and makes a point of trying to show the National Ordinance receivers but there is only one on the net in pictures. I hear about Big Foot all the time but no one ever sees him.

Overload the cartridge and bad things happen. Screw with head space and bad things happen. Build a rifle and bad things happen. Many factors are involved in this mess as we see with many modern rifles blowing up due to Rocket Science bullet building today. Blame the rifle instead kind of like how they blame guns for crime. Rick B

[louis]

There are hopefully nobody using WW1 ammo and WW1 German ammo. And nobody is greasing up thier ammo I don't believe. So there should only be M1 ball in a LN 03. I would for myself keep away from reloads if I'm not doing them myself and I won't cause I'd probably blow myself up in my shop lol. Personally I know the M16 did have receiver failures in the military years ago. So the USMC did not seem to have any problem with LN 03's. And there are a lot of sporterized USMC 03's out there. So far I don't see the problem using M1 ball ammo in these rifles. But I know there are s lot of you insisting otherwise.

[Plain Old Dave]

As to National Ordinance receivers, my now-retired gunsmith here in East TN quit working on National Ordinance M1903s in the early 1970s. They were soft and invariably developed headspace issues due to setback in the locking lug area. Their M1 Garands were rewelds and almost never worked right. Given how and where it let go, the M1 Kaboom video that made the rounds on Facebook a while back was probably a National Ordinance.

Here's the problem with the LNs. IF you don't have a cartridge case failure, you'll have a lot less chance for problem with a heat treated 1903 of any pedigree. Candidly, a lot of the problem can probably be traced to improperly annealed WW1 .30 cal and galvanic corrosion between cupro-nickel jacket metal and brass cartridge cases.

But metal being metal, there's no way to NOT eventually have some form of cartridge case failure other than NOT shooting.

And when cases fail, LN M1903s invariably grenade.

[DRAGONFLYDF]

I have 570454, also a NRA sales rifle with mottled finish. Oct 1913

[Plain Old Dave]

Nice NRA rifles.

Point of information: M1 Ball is not ball ammunition for M1 rifles. M1 Ball was adopted in the mid 1920s primarily to give medium and heavy 30 caliber MGs better range and secondarily to address the fouling problem that had plagued the 1903 for its entire service life. Had a 172 grain copper jacketed boattail bullet moving at @2600 f/s, and M72 Ball is more or less M1 Ball with more quality control steps.

[louis]

You're correct I've should have said M2 Ball. All I'm trying to say is we aren't using surplus ammo from WW1 nor surplus German ammo from WW1. Heck I don't know anyone even using surplus WW2 ammo. The quality of the ammo we use today compared to back then is much better. I know there are variations. But come on now this was all new back then and there is a learning curve. Like I said early M16 rifles also had a problem nobody was condeming them.

[Rick B]

DRAGONFLYDF, Love what looks like 5 slashes on the back of the one rifle. Rick B

[JimF]

. . . . . Like I said early M16 rifles also had a problem nobody was condeming them.

Does anyone remember the PBS broadcast back in the 60's about the "Sen. Ichord committee hearings" on the M16 failures in early Vietnam?

There were PLENTY of people condemning the M16 of that era!

No cleaning maintenance leading to what the broadcast said were "rim-shears" of cartridge cases remaining in the non-plated chambers!

I wish I could re-visit that PBS broadcast!

Anyone else remember? --Jim

[louis]

Yea I remember. They condemned it but kept it. Thanks for reminding me. I also saw photos of piles of m16 receivers that had failures don't remember where I saw those. I had an oldie in 1970 during my Usmc time didn't blow on me but they taught us about the bad receivers.

[louis]

The Usmc seemed not to have a problem with low number 03's in WW2. They where used on Guadalcanal and of course every Marine used them on the firing ranges. No problem. I have Sydney Phillips 03 serial number it was in the 300k.