Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-03-2020, 06:02 AM
jakhamr81 jakhamr81 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 47
Default

Cpl Norton, your countless hours spent rifling through the archives is very much appreciated. I can't say how much I've enjoyed reading through the many documents you've shared that essentially rewrite a whole narrative.

A permanent location for these documents to reside would indeed ensure that many more enthusiast get to read these and form their own opinions. Anytime I see someone regurgitating the Hatcher Notebook theory I direct them to your posts and the sources you've shared.

Thank you again for all you have done for this community!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-03-2020, 06:04 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,079
Default

Hey I just found something new while reading some M1903 history reports. Most of the low numbers failed because of defective ammo. Either they had excessive pressure or were cartridge case failures.

They redesigned the barrel chamber in 1927. I would imagine this also contributed to the safety.

https://i.imgur.com/coh9AD6.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-03-2020, 06:25 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,079
Default

A couple more I find neat. Just because they speak what I talk about earlier on how the Armories needed work.

What is neat is the Army actually was very active in recording their history. Around the WWII timeframe they actually wrote detailed books on the history of about every topic you can think of. I found all these books at the Archives and copied them and they are really are fascinating to read, because they are just like the Brophy books of today, but these were written by the officers that were actually in charge of the projects. They had these history books on the Garand, carbine, machine guns, shotguns, knives, greandes, and etc. Basically there is a book on almost anything we collect in this field and it was all written in the WWII period.

I copied this out of the book on the M1903 written in WWII. I think thinking of SA as a business who is in almost dire need of work, does put perspective on the low number debate.

https://imgur.com/qlcqtIX

https://imgur.com/EbYkFaD
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-03-2020, 08:11 AM
themeowman themeowman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 541
Default

cplnorton
Thank you for all you do. This has been great stuff! I have always enjoyed your posts and find them objective in nature and very informative. Thanks again
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-03-2020, 09:00 AM
navyrifleman navyrifleman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Very interesting documents and correspondence regarding Low Number 1903 receivers.

I think it is important to note that at no time does the Army deny the concerns over the Low Number receivers, but rather they address the subject in regard to other concerns and issues of the day.

The 23 August 1945 Letter from the Commanding Officer of Rock Island Arsenal up the chain of command begins by stating uncategorically that it is accepted fact that the Low Number receivers are metallurgically inferior to the High Numbered ones which had received a "double heat" treatment during manufacture.

What the CO was asking was for a reversal of an earlier (circa 1940) wartime decision to consider the Low Number Receivers suitable for issue. The letter does NOT say that the arsenal wanted to scrap the Low Numbered receivers, but that might have been the ultimate intention as alluded to in the response.

The 30 August 1945 response was to deny the request and continue the Low Numbered rifles in service since there had not been any known Low Number receiver failures reported (in recent times).

Perhaps this was a way of saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The whole point would soon be (if not already) moot as far as Army Ordnance was concerned. WW II was at an end. The M1 Garand was the new standard rifle of the Army. And there were by then many thousands of new "High Number" 1903 and 03A3 rifles on hand.

Last edited by navyrifleman; 08-03-2020 at 09:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-03-2020, 11:24 AM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyrifleman View Post
The 23 August 1945 Letter from the Commanding Officer of Rock Island Arsenal up the chain of command begins by stating uncategorically that it is accepted fact that the Low Number receivers are metallurgically inferior to the High Numbered ones which had received a "double heat" treatment during manufacture.
Others might have said the high number receivers were 'new and improved'.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-03-2020, 07:46 PM
S99VG S99VG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,251
Default

It sounds like the national armories mirrored the state of the army in non-war time conditions prior to WWII. Prior to and following WWI the US Army was a small outfit that I have to assume put little pressure on SA and the other munitions facilities to produce much of anything. On a related topic I've heard that one of the reasons the MK 14 torpedo of WWII performed so badly was that they cost 10K to make and nobody wanted to waste that much money on blowing up a torpedo just to see if it actually worked. That was a far cry from what the military would become a few short years later during the Cold War period.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-05-2020, 04:18 PM
SUPERX-M1 SUPERX-M1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ohio
Posts: 107
Default Heat treatment technique

I read (somewhere) that heat treatment for the 03 or the 03a3 or the garand (which?) was supervised by a man who simply observed the color of the metal as it was heated, and used his eye and judgement that the metal was not over heated or under heated. This man dismissed attempts to utilize instruments (pyrometers? Some form of thermometer system) to more precisely control temperatures.


This is a vague post. Others can correct it.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-05-2020, 05:10 PM
RHScott RHScott is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: NC
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERX-M1 View Post
I read (somewhere) that heat treatment for the 03 or the 03a3 or the garand (which?) was supervised by a man who simply observed the color of the metal as it was heated, and used his eye and judgement that the metal was not over heated or under heated. This man dismissed attempts to utilize instruments (pyrometers? Some form of thermometer system) to more precisely control temperatures.


This is a vague post. Others can correct it.
Not sure how “that guy” was suppose to see the receivers wrapped in leather and inside a pot for the heating.
__________________
You don't need to be perfect, just better than your competition.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-05-2020, 09:51 PM
navyrifleman navyrifleman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 770
Default

There is an excellent description of the heat treatment methods used to harden the US Rifle Model 1903 receivers in the book, The Rifle in America by Philip B. Sharpe. It was originally written and published in 1938, but reprinted in 1995 for the NRA.

Here is some of what he says regarding the early method of receiver heat treatment (page 113):

"The standard pressure of the Springfield cartridge at around 50,000 psi indicates a natural blow on the small bolt lugs of the Springfield of about 6500 pounds. Accordingly, this metal was case hardened...

... The case hardening of these early receivers and bolts was accomplished by hot forging, and then putting the receiver in charcoal and permitting it to cool very slowly. It was then pickled to remove the scale and cold drop-forged to bring it to size. Final machining operations were then undertaken and receivers heated in animal bones for four hours in a pot to a temperature of 1500 degrees F. This heat was maintained for four hours in an oil furnace. They were then quenched in a mineral oil bath...

... In 1918 at about serial number 800,000, the case hardening process was discontinued at Springfield Armory and the double heat treated receiver was used. This is much stronger than the original number. This continued until 1927 when, with serial number 1,275,767, the carbon steel double heat-treated receiver was changed to a nickel-steel receiver and bolt. This is, of course, much stronger..."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 PM.