Article: Safety of Reactivated Drill Rifles

[chuckindenver]

hmmm.
without really stirring up the turd soup..
i think, the real issue with the rip off on these sold by some 20 companies...is the fact they avoid just telling the buying public what they are..and how they were made back into a rifle.
they go as far as painting over the damage..though i doubt its to hide anything, more of a cheap coating..
as for safety on 1903A3 recovered drill rifles.. hmmm.
ok, well, if the weld is small, and whoever did the cutting and grinding has some sort of skill , then,..i belive they are just as safe as any 1903A3 on the shooting line.
however,
its been my observations on the work done to {some} of these, that large gaps in the face to shoulder, to the face of the receiver being ground down so far that a barrel over indexes by a half an inch. av seen some with the receiver ring crushed so bad that a bolt wouldnt feed after a barrel was installed...
now, Aim did make good on these issues by exchanging them..
however.
one SC action that i personally sent back for exchange...2 mos later came back to me through another customer..WTF? if its not spec...DONT SELL IT!..so i sent it back again...along with a nice note...hoping that it doesnt come back to me again...as maybe a lawer would have better luck with getting that POS cut in to bits???
understand that the great deal of these were sold from or through Gibbs, AKA Navy arms, search or ask about that history..and it will open your eyes..
another deal..
i had an over seas customer that wanted me to build 10 1903A3s in non military cals, and wanted to use the U.S. G.I. 1903A3s being sold..i told him what they were...he agrued that they wernt..i said, ok..ill call...
so i called...and i flat out asked. are these recovered drill rifles, answer was....im not sure...ill have someone call you...they did...the didnt know..really?
so i called my customer..he said he wanted them...ok...and wanted to use another smith...fine...
he calls me 6 mos later..and says....you were right...and he is mad at the other smith, and Gibbs...ok...well....i told him the truth from the start...so..he was looking for a chearing section, not facts..
since the rifles were recovered drill rifles.. the Spanish proof house would not proof mark said rifles...and returned them back..
now..how they actually proof these..is a drop test...thats it...no firing of live rounds is done...they work the bolts, check the cal, and cock the weapon. drop it from 3 meters, and see if it goes off...
they wouldnt do any of those tests,,,
funny...now they sell them through a importer to collectors in Spain, so...id bet that someone was paid off along the line to get it done..
do i think they are safe???yes, if the person that does the recovery is skilled, and has some since.
no, if the person has no skill and has a heavy grinder hand...
drill rifle bolts should NEVER be re used...ever...no matter how rare or cool they are...they are junk and make a nice wind chime.
2 of my personall favorite shooters are recovered drill rifles...and yes, i have proof tested one...i loaded 45 Grains of H110 behind a 190Grn bullet. tied it in a tire and with a string behind my truck...pulled the switch...the back of the case melted into the bolt face, and i had to beat the bolt open...no damage to the 1903A3 action at all...i installed a new barrel. and bolt...and 10 years later, iv shot well over 1000 rounds through this rifle..and never an issue..
but..im the one who recovered the rifle, and did it right...

[1mark]

Well Michael — Salem New York who penned the articular 3 years ago has no proof or data to support his theory. His spelling and word phrase is something that should be reported. And the "Ripoff Report" just publishes what anyone will write? There are no checks, no one is checking the accuracy of the reported reports?

[Rick the Librarian]

I find myself in almost total agreement with Chuck - you don't find any mention of these receivers' origins in the advertising for these rifles. Nobody has really satisfactorily answered that.

In the case of M1903A3s made from these "recovered" receivers, the price puts them at or even above decent shooters made from "normal" receivers or overhauled rifles.

[Weasel]

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

Springfield nickel steel # started at 1275767, Rock Island at 319921. All Remington 03,
A3's and A4's were Nickel steel. All Smith Corona's were Nickel Steel. That should clarify what I said.

[Kurt]

Regarding drill receivers safety is more a question of who did the recover than the issue of being a recovered drill rifle. Knowing and trusting the person would alleviate any concern, not would be my line in the stand.

Just my 2 cents worth

Kurt

[chuckindenver]

in regards to Rip Off report..
i personally have used it..they do contact the party being complained against. and give them a chance to read, and respond, users can also respond as well.
my truck was stolen by a tow company, a couple years ago..i filed a complaint with a PUC, as well as Rip off report..said tow company is no longer in bus, and has been fined from the PUC.
they responded like i knew they would, with vulger , threats..

[sdkrag]

Chuck has a lot of good points. I have recovered a drill rifle and my son built a hunting rifle, I had no qualms about using the action. The front of the receiver showed no sign of ever being tacked. The cutoff cleaned up very well. We chose to use this action rather than the low serial number that came with his barrel. It is a very accurate tack driving rifle. He has it with him at Ft. Polk as I type this. He just wishes he could take it along next April to Camp Leatherneck.

[mhb]

I wanted only to clarify the statement that 'High-number' 1903s were not carbon steel. But it is really more complicated than that:
Until March, 1942, 1903 and A3 receivers and bolts were still made of WD 2340 Nickel steel.
On 4 March, 1942, the use of WD steel No. 4045 was authorized (this contained no Nickel, and was introduced to conserve Nickel and other strategic metals for more critical uses).
On 5 July, 1942, the use of WD 8620 Modified was authorized: this steel did contain less than .5% Nickel, but added similar amounts of Chromium and Molybdenum - it is not classified as a Nickel steel. WD 8620 was a very versatile steel and was used in virtually all production of the M1 rifle after July 1942.
So, 1903, A3 and A4 rifles produced after March, 1942 are not Nickel steel, but neither are they plain carbon steel: they are all very strong and safe, as compared to the low-numbered 1903s.
mhb - Mike

Springfield nickel steel # started at 1275767, Rock Island at 319921. All Remington 03,
A3's and A4's were Nickel steel. All Smith Corona's were Nickel Steel. That should clarify what I said.

[chuckindenver]

the majority of 1903A3s and all A4s were made with WD 8620..
how they were heat treated can very.
its been my observations and experiance,, that SC were heat treated to a harder standard then Remingtons..i can drill through a Remington A3 like butter..no so much with a SC..
SC seem to have more Carbon then the Remingtons as well.
if i parkerize a Remington A3 and a SC at the same time,,, the SC will always turn out darker.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

If you are concerned about the strength of receivers in general, you might want to investigate the destructive testing done by P. O. Ackley. It is most enlightening, and performed by one of the best gunsmiths that ever lived. The tests are available online. No paranoia, just facts about what it took to blow up a lot of receivers, including LN and HN 03's (you will be surprised).

jt