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 02-05-2018, 11:07 PM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 3,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calif-Steve View Post
If I recall the 810,000 rule was an insurance policy decision. John Beard really does need to get busy on his book. It will be interesting stuff, indeed.
There is more than enough information on the decision already, there will be no revelations.
More importantly, there haven't been and won't be any more scientific studies done; once the problem was understood and the approximate numbers determined the world moved on.
Could a non-destructive test be developed to confirm one receiver from another; possibly. But the technology didn't exist then, and if it could today it wouldn't matter because the governing authorities (CMP, NRA, perhaps a few other organizations, and maybe insurance companies) will never revisit this because at the end of the day the numbers are insignificant.
If a test was developed, and accepted by CMP, how many would invest the money to have the test conducted on their rifle and then petition the CMP to allow their rifle be issued some sort of waiver? 50 in a year? 5? Better yet, how many would simply complain but never follow through with the process at all? Not worth the thought alone.
There is more than enough information readily available for anyone who wants to look.
Separately, JB always has something interesting to share......
I am sure I could buy one of the pens made from a reclaimed stock and he could take one look and tell me something interesting and unique about the specific history, what rifle it was issued with and who was the inspector on the 2nd arsenal rebuild.
JH
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-06-2018, 12:20 PM
Cosine26 Cosine26 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 36
Default

Springfield will not tell you the serial number where DHT receivers were introduce because they have no definitive records. Hatcher’s Notebook gives a good explanation. Rock Island can identify the change for they were out of production when the change was made and knew the serial number where they restarted production.
This is an ancient and ongoing discussion.
There are several opinions/ positions. Here are a few:
1. No SHT receivers are safe to shoot.
2. All SHT receivers are safe to shoot.
3. Some SHT receivers are safe to shoot, but others are not. Like the old shell game (you make the choice)
4. Some metallurgists express the opinion that the DHT carbon steel receivers are not much better than the SHT receivers.
5. During the 1920’s and the 1930’s, Many or the “experts” advised shipping receivers to Sedgley who would reheat treat them.
6. Many SHT rifles were rebarreled and fitted with new bolts and issued during WWII. See Ordnance Went Up Front by Roy Dunlap.
7. I have seen racks of these rifles for sale just after WWII.
8. After ~1926, the SA would not rebarrel a SHT but would furnish a new DHT/NS receiver free of charge when a M1903 was rebarreled at the armory.
9. After WWII the army would exchange SHT receivers for DHT/NS rreceivers for less than $10.00. I exchanged two and received one DHT and one NS receiver
The option and the responsibility is up to the individual shooter, thought I think it wise to alert new shooters to the issue. Some shooters shoot high velocity shells in Damascus barreled shot guns. This discussion will probably be around for an eternity.
FWIW

Last edited by Cosine26; 02-06-2018 at 12:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-06-2018, 01:42 PM
Calif-Steve Calif-Steve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: California
Posts: 2,306
Default

Hatchers Notebook gives one explanation. But is lacks detail and a definitive book has yet to be written. I am waiting on John Beard to tell that tale.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-06-2018, 04:14 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 1,272
Default

The thing that makes this topic complicated. When you read the actual Army and Marine documents from about 1928 to WWII, everyone had a different opinion on whether the low numbers were safe or not. They were just as divided back then as we are now.

The other thing too. Just because it's a high number doesn't automatically mean it's safe. The Marines had just as much problems with the high number receivers failing the rockwell hardness test, the same as low number recievers.

That is why high number receivers got the hatcher holes in the Marines, the same as the low numbers. Because they had problems with them all.

Last edited by cplnorton; 02-06-2018 at 04:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-06-2018, 04:42 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 1,272
Default

This is from the study the Marines conducting in 1938. They were trying to reheat treat receivers of both the high and low numbers at the Dupont Manufacturing company. Notice the Marines call the high number receivers "overs" and the low number receivers "unders."

Basically in the end of all these studies, they seem to just stop trying to fix the problems with the M1903 receivers and just enlarge the gas hole in the bolt and drill the hatcher hole in the receiver. And just not worry about it. lol

But according to this report, just because it's a high number doesn't mean it's safe.

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-06-2018, 04:59 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 1,272
Default

The Marines stance on the low numbers changed a lot in about 10 years, from 1928 to 1938. At first they thought the Army was making it up, to justify having work. Remember around 1928 when the Army started with the low number debate, the depression was starting and they had to create work or people were out of jobs at SA.

But then their position changed. They went from where they thought the Army made it up, to low number rifles shouldn't fire rifle grenades. But they considered them safe otherwise. At first they thought all RIA receviers were safe, regardless of serial range, even for rifle grenades. Then they changed their stance that no low number, SA or RIA, should fire rifle grenades. Then in the mid 30's they talked about scrapping low numbers as they came back for rebuild. Then they had problems with both high and low numbers and they tried to figure out a way to reheat treat low and high numbers. That basically failed, and then you see them say screw it, just enlarge the gas hole in the bolt, and drill a hatcher hole and it's good to go. And you don't see any debate on low numbers after that. lol

So honestly you see as much debate back then as you do today, and not really any firm evidence either way. As one study conducted says they aren't safe, then another one says they were.

It was the same way at SA. The last study at SA I read during WWII, said low numbers were safe.

But this is a Marine doc from 1928, where the Marines take a swipe at the Army low number regulation of scrapping low numbers. I love that last line. lol

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-06-2018, 08:08 PM
Cosine26 Cosine26 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 36
Default

M1903SHT Steel Discussion
The never-ending discussion on the SHT continues. This is nothing new. Just after WWII there was much discussion about SHT rifles in many magazines and in many published books on US Rifle in WWII. Here is one excerpt:

Heat Treat
There was quite a lengthy discussion in the “Dope Bag” section of the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN for October 1945. The primary discussion started about the “re-heat treating” of LN M1903 actions as practice by Sedgley and furnished to Bannerman for his use in building the hybrid M1903 with a M1917 bolt. (I believe that the War Department had indicated that re-heat treating had been tried at SA with not very satisfactory results.) In this article F.C. Ness quotes a letter as follows:

“I just received a letter from George Vitt of the A.S. Holden Company. This company is one of the foremost heat-treaters in the United States and he says that they will not even think of accepting one of these old actions for re-heat-treating. (Speaking on a LN M1903 action). To further quote him:
“The old Springfield receivers were made of cheap, almost plain carbon steel carburized and quenched. The type of steel would not readily lend itself to good results from the best heat-treating practice even though there are one or two outfits in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who advertise the so called reheat-treated Springfields for sale. I would no more trust these receivers without making a chemical analysis and without testing them on the Rockwell machine than I would jump off the Empire State Building.
From the referenced I have, the reheat-treatment of these receivers amounts to the same thing as the so called double heat treatment practiced at the Springfield armory prior to 1929. In other words, neither of the two is much good for the reason of the low-grade material used in the receiver . (End of Mr. Vitt’s quote)."
There are follow on comments by various metallurgists from the Bureau of Standards that indicates””The attitude of these metallurgists is that the poor material in these Springfield actions makes any of the carbon steel variety undesirable, including those double reheat-treated at Springfield Armory in the series above 800,000.”
The SHT receivers and bolts were made of CLASS C Carbon steel (~ SAE1325 equivalent). It has been indicated that this is the same steel that was used in the making of the Krag. Since the Krag dates from 1892 I would tend to believe that this composition of steel dated from the late 1880's to the early 1890's. There is quite a lengthy article on the steel used in the hull of the RMS TITANIC at the following site:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...kins-9801.html.
The steel used in the TITANIC dates from the 1908 - 1912 time frame, a full thirty years from the Class C steel. I would tend to believe that production of steel would have improved during the ensuing years. Much of the data is concerned with the temperature at which the TITANIC steel failed, but it indicates some of the problems with the early steel and pretty well coincides with the information in Mr. Vitt's comments. According to the report, the TITANIC steel was probably the best available at the time but would not be allowed today. The report analyzes samples of the TITANIC steel using techniques not available in 1912 and certainly not in 1880 or 1890.
With this information I believe that shooting SHT carbon steel receiver equipped M1903's is a chancy proposition - Kind of like shoot high pressure shot gun shells in a Damascus twist shotgun barrel.
FWIW

Last edited by Cosine26; 02-06-2018 at 08:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-07-2018, 07:29 PM
Freedom Freedom is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 362
Default

How does the steel in the 1903A3 compare to the steel in the 1903 ?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-07-2018, 09:12 PM
Cosine26 Cosine26 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 36
Default

The steel in the 03A3 is much better than the carbon steel used in the M1903’s. The early Remington M1903’s were manufactured using the same NS as late SAS M903’s. It is WD 2340 which was surface hardened to ease the “stickiness” of the SA NS.
Several steels were authorized in 1942 such as AISI 4045. Later steels included AIS No’s 4140, 4150, 8640, 9440 and 9420 as it was available. Steels were in short supply and some were simply not available. Manufacturers had to use special tests to determine characteristics so that proper heat treatment could be used. All were superior to the carbon steel. They were very hard to machine and became the “cross to bear” for gunsmiths converting the 03A3’, to sporting or target rifles.
FWIW
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 12:34 PM.