Article: Safety of Reactivated Drill Rifles

[bigskybound]

I am very, very new to this and do not have enough knowledge of metalurgy to form an opinion on this article. Any thoughts?

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Gibbs-...irginia-591086

[Rick the Librarian]

All I know is that it is going to be like discussion on low numbered rifles - a number of people on each side with strong opinions. One thing I will say is that probably the firms that sell them wouldn't do so without 1) a lot of testing and/or, 2) A very large liability insurance policy.

I, personally, would not buy or use a "restored" drill rifle anymore than I would shoot a low-numbered M1903, but that is my personal choice.

In reading the report, it appears to be a complaint by a consumer, rather than a specific safety concern. The writer appears to be basing his opinion on specific concerns that have been voiced on this and other forums; some people agree with them and some don't.

[jgaynor]

This report is three years old. Probably be a good idea for anyone who is interested to Google "Ripoff Report" and any owners/management to see what pops up. I think its telling that writer is not claiming any real loss or injury.

Regards,
Jim

[Col. Colt]

This is very similar to the low number controversy, very much a matter of "it depends". It is telling that neither the author of the report nor any of his sources volunteered any documented physical evidence of the concern or a credible account of a reactivated US Military rifle "exploding" on an end user, and causing harm to him/herself or any bystanders. Since many thousands of these rifles have been "reactivated" and are readily found in gun shops all over the United States, where are the actual cases of harm? ONE Lawsuit award would be enough to shut down most of the companies mentioned. Are they still in business?

I have examined a couple of drill rifles so altered, and both the ones I looked at had a single small bead of weld attaching the barrel to the bottom front of the reciever ring, along with a much larger and uglier blob of weld that secured the cutoff to the reciever. I find it hard to believe that the small weld at the front took more than a second or two to apply. Are the concerned parties saying that that was sufficent time to heat the reciever all the way back to the locking lugs and ruin the temper of the steel? Or that the heat from the cutoff welding somehow migrated all the way to the front ring? Or does running electricity through steel anneal it in some way I have not heard of?

My point is, the rifles that might in fact be dangerous from the heat of welding ruining them would be immediately obvious - due to a large, deep weld - and instantly passed on by any reasonable person who wanted to reactivate it - either for his/her personal safety - or the avoidance of potential liability to their company.

Are there some marginal recievers out there? It would seem possible to even likely that a few exist, due to a lack of "grading standards" in the selection process. And CMP certainly has a vested interest in calling them all "wall hangers" to protect themselves legally. But with judicious selection - I am sure the vast majority of "reactivated drill rifles" will, like the majority of Low Number Springfields that are still fired by their owners, continue serving without incident.

Does anyone have any "blowup" reports that can be verified? I have heard two reports (Internet, not documented) of reactivated recievers stretching fairly quickly, resulting in excessive headspace and retirement - but no blowups. And I am satisfied enough, that after examining the issue myself and talking to the owner who reactivated it, that I recently purchased a 1.3 Million Springfield Armory reactivated reciever that had already passed the 300 round mark without any problem or headspace growth. I will check it regularly and advise if anything changes, but I really think this is another tempest in a teapot. The bad ones LOOK bad - and are parts souces. The rest are likely usable, if not pretty.

Please enlighten me if I am wrong - but with actual evidence, not conjecture and "nervous Nellieism". CC

[bigskybound]

That's why I come to these forums when I start to wade into unfamiliar waters. I am finding quite a deep well of knowledge here. Thanks!

[Dave in NGA]

To date I've 're-activated' seven of these rifles. All of them hand picked at the South store for their minimal welds. Two of these rifles are the case hardened Reminton A3's and the other five are high number nickle steel SA's.

Several are done up in faux A4 style with modern scopes and the other are just redone in military configuration. All are good shooters and have been shot enough that I'm confident they are safe to fire. None of my rifles have been disguised to obscure their origins as 'deactivated' rifles.

If you are interested in why I did this it's because I'm a retired engineer with a machine shop at home and knowledge enough to do the job. As to the heat treat / metallurgical condition of these actions. I'm comfortable with my 30 plus years of heat treat experience in the metal working industry.

Your results may vary and I would not recommend this project for the home handyman. I am curious as to acceptance rate some of these commercial sources are experiencing in selecting their actions. Based upon my experience I would guess there is likely to be a 30-40% drop out rate of unsuitable actions.

Let the flaming begin!

[p246]

Both of mine are at 100 rd counts with no head space issue. One of my mentors build one with a round count of over 400 and his reloads run 2700fps using 168 grain AMAX so he's not taking it easy by any means.

[Weasel]

Reading some BS in this story. High # 03's, Remington 03's, 03A3's and A4's are not carbon steel.

[mhb]

the DHT high-number 1903 actions are, in fact, carbon steel - the heattreatment was changed, not the material. The change-over to nickel steel occurred somewhat later, so there are substantial numbers of carbon steel high-numbered rifles. FWIW, they are considered by many to be the strongest and smoothest of all the 1903s.

mhb - Mike

Reading some BS in this story. High # 03's, Remington 03's, 03A3's and A4's are not carbon steel.

[Rick the Librarian]

Mhb is right - the composition of the receivers was not changed until later. Roughly SA s/n from @ 800,000 to @ 1,289,000 was carbon steel - most of those afterwards were nickel/steel; RIA receivers from 285,507 to about 319,000 were still carbon steel, but the improved process.