Air Service Rifle....kinda

[mhb]

of terms.

The rifles were to be destroyed (all of them) when turned-in from the field for repair or overhaul - that is a blanket condemnation. There was no effort to round them all up for destruction.

The fact is that they were not all destroyed, due to later decisions by the Chief of Ordnance, and the fact that, after the Great War, relatively few rifles were overhauled due to the much smaller military force structure in the inter-war years.

mhb - Mike

[Rick the Librarian]

Again, maybe splitting hairs, but the "rifles" weren't destroyed, just the receivers. All the parts, if still in serviceable (or repairable) condition were to be salvaged.

[chuckindenver]

telling anyone to shoot a single heat treat 1903 is irresponsible.
no SHT 1903 should be fired with live ammo...
however, if someone does make the choice to fire one with live ammo.
avoid hand loads, and military ball ammo...only fire factorty ammo.
SHT 1903s dont fail out of the blue...its how the receiver handles a case head or other failure.. all it takes its a micro second for your life to change...make sure you wear leather gloves, shooting glasses, and a long sleeve shirt or jacket when firing said rifle, and make sure nobody is standing next to you.

[PhillipM]

FWIW, you did not say that your rifle is actually an SA with the serial number you give: if it's actually a Rock Island of that number, the point is moot, since RI changed to DHT with #285,507 (there is no real doubt about it, as that was the first number they recorded when production commenced with the new heattreatment. And RI was also instrumental in the introduction of Nickel Steel, commencing with #319921, and neither of the post-interruption RI rifles are suspect of being unsafe: quite the contrary, they are some of the best actions and to be preferred over any low-number by either manufacturer.

PRD1 - mhb - Mike

I think you misread my serial number, it is 36,018 and is made by SA. I have read Hatcher cover to cover and I never have figured out why they spent so much time trying to reinvent receiver forging and heat treatment when all they had to do was copy what Winchester, Remington, and the Remington plant at Eddystone had been doing for years.

The theory is not of my own, it is very informed. Note that SA didn't even record when the new DHT receivers were made and when a batch of old ones were found they went right into production! If they are so dangerous why did they do that?

[mhb]

pretty finely split. When the receiver is destroyed, however many useable parts may remain, rifle # whatever has ceased to exist.

mhb - Mike

Again, maybe splitting hairs, but the "rifles" weren't destroyed, just the receivers. All the parts, if still in serviceable (or repairable) condition were to be salvaged.

[mhb]

It is possible that I misread the serial number, though I seem to remember there were 6 digits there, as originally posted - in any case, you definitely have a low-numbered 1903.
As to why SA and RIA didn't immediately change materials in the receiver and bolt, and go on from there, I think there are at least 2 good reasons:
1. There was nothing wrong with the low-carbon steel they were using - the problems were in the processing. The double heattreatment allowed continued use of the original material and resulted in the strongest and smoothest of the 1903s - better in both respects than Nickel Steel. Casehardening of such steels can produce excellent rifles, and it is worth noting that millions of 98 Mausers were made of essentially the same material as used in the 1903, but, because they were differentially casehardened, and apparently under better controls, they never suffered from the problems experienced with the 1903.

2. At the time the correction was made, SA was producing over a thousand rifles a day. They also had very large stocks of the materials on-hand, representing a large investment. By altering the forging controls and heattreatment, they were able to use the same materials to produce a rifle better than it had ever been, and avoid complete shutdown of both production facilities. In wartime, nickel becomes a very important strategic material, and, even had it been decided to change-over to that material during the war, there would have been unavoidable delays in obtaining the steel. Further, the nickel steels are more expensive, another factor in wartime production.

As to why SA didn't stop production, and why some SHT receivers were assembled after the decision was made to change the processing, I think the scale of production accounts for that. With over a thousand rifles being assembled every day, there were much larger numbers of receivers (and other parts) in various stages of production all over the Armory's facilities. Since they didn't stop production and destroy everything made but not yet completed, it would have been surprising, indeed, if some such intermixing had not occurred.

If, as you say, the theory is not your own, but very well informed - whose is it, and on what information is it based?

I believe that every one of the topics we've discussed here is covered by Hatcher, and I don't know of any other source document which contradicts what he had to say.

mhb - Mike

[Cecil]

Does anyone have the number of failures verses the number of SHT rifles produced? Also is there any statistics on DHT failures?

[mhb]

Not really. Hatcher reported on a number of failures which were brought to Ordnance's attention up to 1929, IIRC. There are one or 2 rifles in that list which MIGHT have been high numbers. And Hatcher did not say that all known failures up to that date were listed in his book.
Unfortunately, there is no all-inclusive list of in-service failures of 1903 rifles, and certainly none covering failures after the rifles were dropped from service inventories.
It is true that Ordnance regulations require serious incidents with weapons and ammunition to be reported for investigation, and that there undoubtedly have been failures with 1903 rifles which Hatcher did not list, but I have never seen any source for such original documents.
Finally, Hatcher made it clear that Ordnance did not make any of its conclusions or recommendations based merely on the failures he does discuss, but took them as an indication that there was a serious problem with at least some of the rifles themselves.
The series of technical investigations Ordnance then undertook resulted in the changes in manufacture and the recommendation that all of the low-numbered rifles should be declared 'unfit for military service'.

mhb - Mike

[chuckindenver]

any weapon can, has and will fail, new or old, its not that it will fail. its how it handles a failure.
you would be supprised on what modern weapon has had more failures then any other.

[Cecil]

You can't stop there....surprise me.