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 03-05-2021, 07:10 PM
DukeIronHand DukeIronHand is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 66
Default

Thanks again JB.
You are a true font of knowledge.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-05-2021, 10:27 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj7097 View Post
Iím a little confused about something. Everything Iíve read says the Hatcher hole was drilled into low number receivers for the express purpose of making them shootable. As far as I can tell the only thing you couldnít do with with a low number was fire rifle grenades. Does anyone have any data on the number of injuries incurred with a Hatcher hole modified rifle? If a low number receiver has a Hatcher hole can/should it be shot?
Even though the additional gas escape hole has been coined the Hatcher Hole. Julian Hatcher actually had nothing to do with it. It was actually tested and approved by a LtCol Borden.

But to answer you question, the US Army did not record a failure of a low number receiver after the last of the WWI Surplus ammo dried up in 1927. The Army did not start to drill the additional gas escape hole on new production rifles until the National Match rifles of 1937 and Springfield Armory drilled the hole on all rebuilds starting in 1937. The Marines drilled the Hole on all rebuilds starting in the fall of 1938.

The Army is actually the one that introduced the policy of not firing rifle grenades out of low numbers. I don't remember the exact year but it was around 1924/25 If I remember right. I didn't go back and double check the docs. But the Marines followed suit as well. At first they only limited the Springfield low numbers from rifle grenades, then later they limited the RIA as well.

Now the Army did not pull low numbers from service as long as they were serviceable, but if a low number went in for rebuild from 1928 to 1940, the low number receiver was scrapped and a high number replaced it.

The Army reversed this policy in 1940 and allowed low number receivers to be used in rebuild. By 1944 Springfield Armory declared Low numbers entirely safe and actually wanted to squash the topic by publishing in the American Rifleman that low numbers were entirely safe as long as they headspaced.

The Marines only limitation was that low numbers did not fire rifle grenades, this was in practice from the mid 20's to 1938, when that limitation was removed and the Marines also declared them safe as long as they headspaced and could fire a 70,000 PSI proof round.

But the Army recorded in the 50's that they didn't have any failures after 1927. So technically other than the rifles they intentionally blew up in the testing of the Additional gas escape hole and the enlarged hole in the bolt, Those would be the only failures with the additional gas escape hole that was recorded by Ordnance

I have that test report from the Archives, I think it shows pics of how the rifles faired with the additional gas escape hole when their was a failure. If I get a little time I will go back and find it and see if there are any cool pics to post from it.

Last edited by cplnorton; 03-05-2021 at 10:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-06-2021, 03:17 AM
hogfamily hogfamily is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Alaska
Posts: 224
Default

https://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-06-2021, 03:21 AM
DukeIronHand DukeIronHand is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 66
Default

Boy. What a fascinating history. Love this stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-06-2021, 08:44 AM
cdj7097 cdj7097 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 110
Default

So the bottom line is once the old ammo (bad) was gone and after 1940 when thousands, possibly millions of rounds of M2 ammo ( good) was fired there are no known failures of the low number receivers once the chamber was drilled or in some cases not drilled but passed a 70,000 psi test that are known to have caused an injury. I have a non drilled 1916 03 that I have installed a Numrich 22 conversion kit. The rifle has itís original barrel and will remain as a 22 but I hate the thought of thousands of ď wall hangersĒ that people are afraid to shoot. If the 1916 had gone through WWII rebuild Iím sure I would shoot it as a 30.06 I know some will say Iím being stupid, buts thats what they said when I volunteered for Vietnam when I was to young to receive a draft card.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-06-2021, 09:23 AM
DukeIronHand DukeIronHand is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 66
Default

I wouldnít own one or shoot one - I donít care when or why they failed because of brittle metal and/or bad cartridges - they failed.
Plenty other high numbered rifles to buy out there and enjoy so why worry about it.
You want a L/N rifle then please buy away.

EDIT: And I am unsure of the ďHatcher HoleĒ connection (made for a spate of bad cartridges) to the ďLN Brittle ReceiverĒ issue. I always thought they were two issues totally and completely unrelated to each other.

Last edited by DukeIronHand; 03-06-2021 at 09:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-06-2021, 10:10 AM
cdj7097 cdj7097 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 110
Default

Thank you....you also might want to look at failures by production year. I know lots of WWII veterans. None of them ever cared about the controversy we have today. I have confidence in the greatest generation. I will not pass on a rifle out of fear. After Brophy, Campbell and many others assessed the problem over the years and after all that, the decision was made to hand these weapons over to front line troops going in to combat. They worked the problem and gave the rifles to our military. That was not based on a calculated risk. The decision was based on information and I hate to say it, the science. By the way I'm talking about those low number rifles that were rebuilt. Would I shoot an all original 1910, no. But give me a 1910 that went through rebuild and that's a different animal.

Last edited by cdj7097; 03-06-2021 at 10:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-06-2021, 11:06 AM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is online now
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 4,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj7097 View Post
So the bottom line is once the old ammo (bad) was gone and after 1940 when thousands, possibly millions of rounds of M2 ammo ( good) was fired there are no known failures of the low number receivers once the chamber was drilled or in some cases not drilled but passed a 70,000 psi test that are known to have caused an injury.
I wouldnít advise anyone to shoot or not shoot a LN 1903. But I do try to direct people to facts, and away from faulty logic.

That no studies have been published since Hatcherís Notebook and other military data in the 1930ís does not in any way mean there have been ďno reported failuresĒ. The military was replacing the LN 1903ís with 1903A3ís and Garands, there was a war and no need for additional study.
This is a common comment in LN 1903 discussions.

Itís a shame the .22 conversions are so scarce, I would love to have one or several. How does yours shoot?
JH
__________________
Zvenoman

Zvenoman's Feedback Thread
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-06-2021, 11:15 AM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is online now
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 4,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj7097 View Post
The decision was based on information and I hate to say it, the science.
Thatís pretty much the definition of a calculated risk!

No one on this thread is questioning courage or intelligence. But this will always be an emotional discussion with no possible ďrightĒ answer for everyone.
Some people happily shoot their LN 1903ís and some do not. Pointing those with questions to facts is better than making the decision for them, in my humble opinion.
Would I shoot one? Irrelevant to what I would recommend to someone else on this topic.
Jh
__________________
Zvenoman

Zvenoman's Feedback Thread
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-06-2021, 11:33 AM
cdj7097 cdj7097 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 110
Default

I love the conversion kit. Iíve used it in all my 03 variants. I have an A4 that I contend was a safe queen. Iíve never shot it in 30.06 only in 22. On the low number front letís ask another question. With all the shooting of 03ís and all the Ďnewí ammo on the market...who can point to a single incident of low number failure or injury, not counting those failures that have been ceremoniously destroyed on the internet, in the last 76 years. We know how stupid we are and there is always going to be somebody that pushes the load to itís níth degree. But Iíve looked and havenít found any injury attributed to low number receivers when handled responsibly.
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 11:11 PM.