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 04-23-2021, 09:37 PM
T18B40 T18B40 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 64
Default

I’m not sure or tech enough to post a picture, but I’d be glad to email it for someone to upload here. I haven’t bought it yet, or held it to give a good look over. It’s on a gun board and the owner is like 20 minutes from me.

Last edited by T18B40; 04-23-2021 at 10:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-23-2021, 10:58 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard View Post
For many years, the final authority on receiver steels and heat treatment was "Hatcher's Notebook". And therein, Hatcher states that SA S/N 801548 was the highest known receiver to have ruptured from faulty (casehardened) heat treatment. So the CMP chose S/N 810000 as the absolute final threshold for double heat treatment.

J.B.
I know we have talked privately about the low number controversy and I think we are in agreement on what we both feel about it.

The thing is I think the CMP does a disservice by just fixating on the low number serial number ranges without at least offering a warning of caution about the high numbers just the same. High number carbon steel receivers can be too hard and too brittle and just as unsafe as a low number receiver.

The Marines had a few ruptured receivers well into the middle 900k serial range with carbon steel SA receivers. Which when studied through the metallurgy report were found to be unsafe in their heat treatment, just like the low numbers. That is why the Marines drilled the additional gas escape hole on all receivers, because they had issues with some high numbers being too hard and brittle, just the same as the low numbers.

In my opinion if they were really going to put a safety notice out they would talk about caution with all receivers and checking headspace. I especially wish they would urge caution with the high number SA carbon steel receivers, the same as they would low numbers. I also wish they would explain the added safety benefits of the Nickel steel receivers.

Ordnance and the Marines both declared that double heat treat Carbon steel receivers were only marginally more safe than single heat treat carbon steel receivers if you had a failure. But Nickel steel receivers were very highly favored by both organizations for their strength and safety and their ability to survive a failure.

Everyone knows the low vs high numbers, but not many know that the high number carbon steel isn't that much better. Nor do they usually know the Nickel Steel receivers are the safest by far.

You never hear really anyone talk about that and I personally think everyone has just a false sense of security that just because it's a high number, it means it's automatically safe.

Personally if I was going to make a recommendation on safety, I would say your best chance at safety is to just use a nickel steel receiver with a barrel date past 1927/28 when Ordnance redesigned the chamber for added safety.

But in my opinion I would still be more focused on the headspace and quality of the ammo I was using more so than the rifle serial. Just because any of these rifles can fail with the right circumstances.

Then also everyone is so focused on the low number controversy when the M1 Garand had a substantially bigger problem with the heat treatment of barrels and receivers that plagued almost all years of production and all manufactures.

If people who won't shoot a low number would read the reports on how many M1 Garands that blew up, they wouldn't shoot a Garand.

I just wish if the CMP really wanted to warn people, they would put alot more of this in perspective and really educate people. Not just say low numbers are bad and end it at that. Because many have a false sense of security out there and the problems did not stop with just the low numbers

Last edited by cplnorton; 04-23-2021 at 11:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-24-2021, 12:00 AM
John Beard John Beard is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Posts: 3,540
Default

The issue of M1903 receiver and rifle safety is substantially clouded by facts mixed with error and misinformation.

And I'll leave it at that.

J.B.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-24-2021, 12:01 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard View Post
The issue of M1903 receiver and rifle safety is substantially clouded by facts mixed with error and misinformation.

And I'll leave it at that.

J.B.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-24-2021, 06:04 AM
snuffy1a snuffy1a is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 307
Default

CPLNORTON "Everyone knows the low vs high numbers, but not many know that the high number carbon steel isn't that much better. Nor do they usually know the Nickel Steel receivers are the safest by far." IS there a way to tell one from the other?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-24-2021, 07:01 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snuffy1a View Post
CPLNORTON "Everyone knows the low vs high numbers, but not many know that the high number carbon steel isn't that much better. Nor do they usually know the Nickel Steel receivers are the safest by far." IS there a way to tell one from the other?
I should say too my post above is what I would say as far as a warning. When you really get into this, Ordnance in the middle 20's never had fear the low receivers would fail by themselves. They were talking about what would happen if the receiver would interact with defective ammo with excessive pressure, or if the rifle had excessive headspace and had a defective case.

Once the issues with the defective ammo were resolved, the M1903 had one of the safest service lives of any US service rifle. The low numbers included.

I'm merely pointing out that they focus entirely on the low numbers when high numbers can react just the same. That is why I always preach checking headspace and the quality of your ammo and don't worry about the serial number.

But if you want the best safety you can get with a M1903. You want a Nickel Steel Receiver, Nickel Steel bolt, and a barrel date post 1927 when they redid the cut of the feed ramp to add more safety to the base end of the cartridge to lessen the effective of a case rupture. Then throw in the drilling of the additional gas escape hole on the left side and you have as much safety as you can get with the standard M1903. But I would still shoot any of them as long as they headspace.

But to answer your question. RIA made the change somewhere after August 1st 1918. Which around the date was serial 319921. But RIA says a few carbon steel forgings might have been used after. There is a way to tell on the RIA, there are stamped NS on the receiver face. But it is covered up by the barrel. So you have to remove the barrel to see it.

On SA, I know Hatcher says it happened around the 1.275 serial range and 1927. But there is some contradiction to that in the Ordnance docs. I can't remember off hand what the Ordnance docs state as it's been a while since I read that string, and I know that is in a folder of several thousand pages so if I have time I will go back and look. But I remember a contradiction to what Hatcher said. I remember it was by a few months or something, but that is off the top of my head. I do believe it was for sure by 1928 though.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-24-2021, 08:10 AM
Rick the Librarian Rick the Librarian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NW Washington State
Posts: 7,444
Default

This has been a very interesting discussion and I thank all of you for taking part.
__________________
"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
  #18  
Old 04-24-2021, 09:25 AM
Garandpa Garandpa is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 397
Default

"This has been a very interesting discussion and I thank all of you for taking part." My sentiments as well!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-24-2021, 11:48 AM
ceresco ceresco is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,058
Default

The only significant safety issues I ever personally experienced with firearms have been due to cartridge case failures. These were probably primarily manufacturing defects, possibly enhanced by headspace and brass deterioration. Good Shooting. ....
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-24-2021, 05:10 PM
Calfed Calfed is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 1,799
Default

Were all Remington 1903 and 1903-A3 and all SC 1903-A3 receivers made with NS or some other even better alloy?
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 01:25 AM.