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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-02-2014, 08:06 PM
Puccini Puccini is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 26
Default Failure rate table

Heres the failure rate table from the government report:

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/t1.jpg

4.3 per 100,000 rifles produced up to 1917.

Double heat treatment started in February 1918
with serial number in the range between 750,000 and 800,000.
The 800,000 number was chosen randomly because the receivers were not heat treated sequencially.

How the heck did this ever become such a well preserved myth.

It's gotten so that shooters just blindly turn their noses up at perfectly good 03's.

I'd like to see the reports of failures of modern day Winchester and Remington rifles. I'd bet it's pretty close or more than these 03's.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-02-2014, 09:10 PM
Rick the Librarian Rick the Librarian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NW Washington State
Posts: 6,732
Default

Lyon's table has some flaws in it. Only those rifles recorded by Hatcher are listed.
__________________
"We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
--C.S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-02-2014, 09:33 PM
bigbird bigbird is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 1,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick the Librarian View Post
Lyon's table has some flaws in it. Only those rifles recorded by Hatcher are listed.
FYI - Which equates to 0.0000412% of the M1903's mfg. before 1918.

But let me say that I have a LN M1903 mfg. in 1909 and it will not be shot again.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-02-2014, 10:40 PM
John Beard John Beard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Posts: 2,272
Default

I've always stayed out of the low number failure discussion. But I did come to one startling realization recently which I thought I would pass along.

If it were a given that I had to shoulder and fire an M1903 with a bore obstruction, I would choose a low number over a high number. I'll let you ponder that one for a while.

J.B.

p.s.,

And it has nothing to do with wanting to see what life holds after death.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-03-2014, 12:18 AM
FredG FredG is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Yutan, Nebraska USA
Posts: 730
Default

If the receiver gives way, then the pressure probably won't shear the bolt lugs and drive the bolt back into the shooters face. If the receiver held together, the pressure would build up and blow the bolt backward into your face.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-03-2014, 12:47 AM
stripper clip stripper clip is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 493
Default

I think it's interesting that the Krag rifles had no apparent problems as the 1903 did with regard to failures. As far as I have read, the Krag receiver heat treatment method carried over into manufacture of the 1903.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-03-2014, 01:06 AM
FredG FredG is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Yutan, Nebraska USA
Posts: 730
Default

There was a lot more pressure from the 30-06 than the 30-40 Krag. Also the 30-40 case is rimmed and was enclosed within the chamber. The 30-06 was rimless and so had a head That wasn't completely enclosed. Pressure had a chance to blow out the side of the rimless 30-06 head but not the 30-40. It's all of that gas being instantly released into the bolt, magazine well etc at 50,000 psi that creates havock.

Last edited by FredG; 04-03-2014 at 01:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-03-2014, 01:40 AM
Peconga Peconga is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard View Post
I've always stayed out of the low number failure discussion. But I did come to one startling realization recently which I thought I would pass along.

If it were a given that I had to shoulder and fire an M1903 with a bore obstruction, I would choose a low number over a high number. I'll let you ponder that one for a while.

J.B.
I'll take a swing and speculate that it has to do with the failure modes of a brittle (LN) receiver vs. a more elastic (HN) receiver, and more particularly with the amount of material that might be directed back towards the shooter's face vs. his right hand during a catastrophic failure. Something about trading a hand for an eye, perhaps?

On a related note, I would offer the general observation that assessing the risk of ANY activity is meaningless without assessing the risk of alternatives. Risk is all relative, and as a scientist you have to ask the right question in order to draw any useful conclusions from the data. For example, it is not especially useful to calculate that the failure rate of LN 1903 rifles during WW1 was X.XX blow-ups per million rounds fired. That is the wrong question; in this instance the Right Question would be:
"Given that we will be using a large number of .30-06 service rifles in combat, is the failure rate of LN M1903s statistically different than HN M1903s (or M1917s, or M1 Garands) using the same ammunition under identical conditions?"
Without quantitative knowledge of the alternatives, all we have is a vague discomfort about the only option that we have studied in depth.
__________________
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Last edited by Peconga; 04-03-2014 at 02:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-03-2014, 02:19 AM
CptEnglehorn CptEnglehorn is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 178
Default

Ive shot low numbers with light cast bullet loads, other than that, I prefer to keep them as examples of early rifles, part them out, or use them as 22s.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-03-2014, 08:03 AM
The Original Youngblood The Original Youngblood is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Virginia, on the west side of my ancestral farm
Posts: 744
Default

__________________
Original Join Date: 25Mar04
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 03:54 PM.