I own a 03 springfield and I wonder if the action would be suitable for a 9.3x64 ?

Not a gunsmith but the ,35 wheloan and the .400 whelan have been built on theses actions for years and they are similar to your proposed selection.

Yes, they are very suitable. From my experience the boltface is about all that needs altering as the feed rails usually work as they are. I wouldn't mind having one of them in that caliber myself.

If you could be talked into the 9,3x62, it's just a rebarrel and feedramps.

either are suitable for the springfield, assuming it's "high" sn'ed

jeffe

.

quote:

Originally posted by bearhunter762:
I own a 03 springfield and I wonder if the action would be suitable for a 9.3x64 ?

A high-number Springfield action is great for any round with .30/'06 size cases, and can be used for magnums up to at least the .358 Norma......

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Jeffeosso:

I have never been a student of the American rifle but is it not the 03's in low SN that gives problems even with low pressure rounds?

I have from time to time seen pictures of 03 actions with one of their lugs sheared off and though I have skimmed over Hatchers very in depth analysis of 03 steel and hardening procedures never taken the time to put the memory exactly which actions by date or manufacture should be avoided ?

I do NOT believe that the low-numer Springfields egver gave problems with LOW PRESSURE rounds, not was it the BOLTS which were faulty-it was brittle receivers that caused the problems with some low-number Springfields. Even so, the percentage of low-number Springfields that actually failed in service was extremely small. A large part of the problem with even these stemmed from poor cartidge cases-the brass on a lot of early .30/'06 ammo was too soft......

whereon the gun should Ilook for these numbers and what is considered a low number? thank you for your replies

.

At the outbreak of WWI when the USA started drafting men by the hundreds of thousands the training system was just overwhelmed. There was both a shortage of cadre and experience officers with firearms training. The most common cause of action failures during these times was bore obstructions. Although there was a rash of model 1917 action failures at the same time these are now overlooked. All the 1917 action failures were attributed to bore obstructions. A.L. Woodworth (Not Hatcher) did the actual hands-on investigation at Springfield Armory of the 1903’s wrote a report for “Army Ordnance†. I have this scanned and will send a copy to those interested if you will drop me a note at mjpetrov@acsalaska.net.

As the men learned that you can’t shoot an obstruction like cosmoline or a patch out of the bore things improved.

In regard to the 1917’s blowing up I would suggest you read “The Price of Carelessness†by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918.

On page 104 of Hatchers note book he describes the tests he performed on the strength of the 1903’s locking lugs.

He stared cutting down the thickness of the lugs to see when they would give way. He got down to 1/10th of an inch (¼ of the original thickness) before one of his blue pills sheared the lugs off. The factory service cartridges did not shear them off.

He also describes completely removing the lugs and firing the rifle just to see what would happen. The services rounds, again, did not break anything off, but did crush the safety lug. A subsequent blue pill sheared it off.

Alf,
I've read on this a bit... seems the failure rate, in duty rifles (oh, no, they did NOT pull the first 1,000,000 rifles from service) was directionally 47 in 1,000,000

lug shear wasn't the issue, rather ruptured receivers, as the question (which I question) is to do with the "soft" and "double heat treated" actions.

Just to be clear, the worst lot of 1903 are quite a bit better than the "late war" 1945 mausers.. Myself, i will pass on a 44, even.

the springfield is a beautiful action, except the cutoff, and even that is more of a beauty mark than anything else.

low pressure.. well, the 30-03 and 30-06 aren't exactly low pressure..

jeffe

quote:

low pressure.. well, the 30-03 and 30-06 aren't exactly low pressure..

Damn I like to see the cal30 1903 in conversation.

most good people dont recogninze it as the father of the .30-06' springfield.

I bought this rifle about 15 years ago and don"t use it much.I think a 9.3x64 built on a springfield action would be a nice rifle and a real moose thumper