Have noticed a lot of debate on this subject over the last few years.

What I have not noticed is a lot of actual authoritative source material on it.

Knew I had some of this somewhere, and happened on it today. It is a statment issued by Frankford Arsenal in 1925, when that was both a hot and relatively important issue:

"Model 1903 recivers with serial numbers below 800,000 of Springfield Armoury manufacture and below 285,507 by Rock Island Arsenal, are made of carbon steel. They are so hard in some cases as to be quite brittle, due to variations in heating temperatures before quenching in manufacture. Receivers and bolts can shatter from a blow or high-pressure cartridge.

"Old military records list 68 of the low number 1903s bursting accidentally. Many more were destroyed in testing.

"In view of the large number of accidents,occurring with rifles having serial numbers below 800,000, this Arsenal considers that all such rifles should be withdrawn from service and not used for any firing."

Early in 1926, Frankford Arsenal issued another statment to the effect that the firing of all small arms ammunition be prohibited for Springfield Armory rifles below 800,000.

"Because some, if not most, of the dangerously brittle 1903 receivers (percentage of total not known, of course) do not respond to re-heat treatment, salvage of low-number 1903s is not considered practical. (In one test,
Springfield Armory carefully re-heat-treated 48 of these receivers, of which 16 failed on high pressure firing test.) The military reviewing board recommended that all low-numbers be withdrawn from service and scrapped." Evidently many were just put in storage.

"The low-number 1903 rifles cannot be considered safe for any use. Even though odds are thousands to one that no accident will happen, the possibility is always present. We therefore recommend all such rifles be retired, de-activated,snd properly marked, so they will not be fired again."

This info, written by famous gunsmith and NRA staffer, Roy F. Dunlap, is found in the March, 1981 "Dope Bag" section of the American Rifleman.

As I understand it from other sources, the reason the Springfield and Rock Island early receivers became brittle is that the carbon was essentially burned out of the steel by excessive heating before quenching. This made the receivers both hard,and brittle, all the way through. The reason Springfield and Frankford Arsenals said they could not be counted on to be successfully re-heat-treated is that although it was possible to re-carburize the surface of the receiver, it is NOT possible to recarburize it all the way through. That means that rather than the interior being left soft after re-heat-treating, it may be left hard and brittle like it was before such re-treatment. So, any blow hard enough to fracture the surface, MAY also shatter the hard & brittle interior.

I know that won't convince lots of folks that they may be dangerous, and others are already convinced and don't need this info.

Still, it is interesting to me to review what the arsenals devoted to turning out safe military weapons had to say.

quote:

the reason the Springfield and Rock Island early receivers became brittle is that the carbon was essentially burned out of the steel by excessive heating before quenching. this made the receivers both hard,and brittle, all the way through.

If the steel contains no carbon or insufficient carbon the steel will not harden upon quenching.....

The statement above appears to be incorrect ....at least metallurgically.

Thnks for the article however.....always good to get info!

Hi, Vapodog. I suspect that rather than incorrect, the statment is over-simplified.

When the carbon is burned out of the steel, I suspect the granular structure is also changed, thus leaving an aglomeration of more "mealy" hard particles, more loosely bound together than is the case when the carbon is still present. That would not be "hard" in the sense usually used to describe the "strength" of steel, but would not have a great deal of strength at any rate...

quote:

Hi, Vapodog. I suspect that rather than incorrect, the statment is over-simplified.

possibly....in any regard it doesn't change the stand by the armory......and again...thanks for the info!

interesting historical article. Many are written on both sides of the issue and th edebate will forever rage on. I will continue to shoot low numbered Springfields without fear.

If anyone has some that they do not want because they are afraid they will blow up, please contact me.

For my money this is one of the best articles written on the subject.

1903 failures

I myself don't shoot low numbers, but not because I am afraid of them. I just have always found enough DHT actions to suit my fancy.

Obviously some low number receivers were and are OK, but there is no way to know which ones.
Arguably receivers which have been in use for years and have been through more than one barrel ought to be OK, but there is a potential fatigue factor .... maybe they are crystallizing bit by bit and getting ready to pop. So I don't own any low numbers and stick to DHTs.

quote:

Originally posted by Idared:
For my money this is one of the best articles written on the subject.

1903 failures

I myself don't shoot low numbers, but not because I am afraid of them. I just have always found enough DHT actions to suit my fancy.

68/1,000,000+ 0.00068 PERCENT failure rate


i'll take my chances and put a non-60kPSI + round in them.

257 bob, for example

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by Idared:
For my money this is one of the best articles written on the subject.

1903 failures

Great analysis, thanks for sharing it.

Regardless of any article that just talks get the issue of the Rifle Magazine in which the author whacked about 6 low number receivers and broke them using the shank of a screw driver.
The article has photographs of the broken receivers including at least one in which the receiver ring was broken. Complete with serial numbers. And guess what? He accidentally picked up a high number and it broke too.
The method he used to break them was flawed you say?
He held the receivers in one hand and whacked them with the other. They were a worthless POS. The government officials were clearly gutless not to destroy them.

Jeffe, the problem with the 68 number is that it doesn't even start to account for all of the ones which broke on proof firing at the arsenal(s). Although the government has never published or released that number (to my knowledge), the item I posted at the start of this thread alludes to them and uses the term "many more", IIRC.

Of course, anyone can choose any odds they like, and do what they wish...it's their money, their cigar, and their life. But, its kinda like running head-on into a Freightliner loaded with re-rod on the highway "at speed". It only takes the first time to really ruin a person's day. For him the odds have suddenly become 100% negative.

And metal DOES stress fatigue, improperly heat-treated metal faster than metal properly done. That's one reason engineers designing rifle actions talk about things like "design-life". The Ruger M77 design life is said to be 50,000 rounds at SAAMI recommended pressures. I wonder what it is in a low-numbered Springfield?

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
He held the receivers in one hand and whacked them with the other. They were a worthless POS. The government officials were clearly gutless not to destroy them.

It always amazes me that folks that have no decision making authority always find ways to criticize the government and officials that are required to make decisions.

We fought wars with those things! and won without the loss of a single soldier due to a Springfield failing.

Someone made a decision to use them and that decision was a correct one.

Thank god you wasn't making the decisions about rifles we could use.

If I recall my history and dates correctly I believe that every single 1903 rifle used in WWI had a low numbered receiver. Teddy Roosevelt’s famous 1903 was a low numbered one, as were the vast majority of early G&H Springfield sporters.

If you read Hatcher’s report and findings it’s pretty clear that when the Ordnance people determined there might be a problem they did in fact fix that problem, and in the process destroyed a number of receivers that didn’t pass the new testing.

According to Hatcher Springfield receivers had a failure rate of 1 in 24,242 over a 13 year period, and Rock Island had a rate of 1 in 11,896 during the same time frame. It is also important to point out that not all of the reported failures could be attributed to improper heat treating.

The last issue of Precision Shooting Magazine had an article, with pictures, of a Mauser 98 that blew up into numerous pieces do to poor factory heat treatment, and there have been several pictures posted on this forum of new Savage receivers that have come apart, and also an M14 that blew up.

What does all this prove? I have no idea, other than machines made by man can fail sometimes.