Confusion on LN 03's

[slamfire]

The same brittle receivers, the same soft ammunition, and not a reported receiver failure in the trenches of France?

Your post raises two issues: What was the primary rifle in France? Based on what I have seen and read, only the Marines carried the 03 into Europe, the US Army carried the M1917. I am aware, from American Rifleman articles, that Regular Army Units were relieved of their 03's and given M1917's before shipping across. This was how 03 serial number one was found, the Private who had the rifle did not want to give it up, he created enough of a fuss that his unique rifle was identified to authority. I would like someone to give number of the actual 03’s that were in Europe.

And I believe this why not a word of the defective single heat treat rifles appears in print, or in a whisper, during WW1 or years after. If an adult had been in charge of the War Department and found that all of those one million 03’s made to date were suspect, the correct decision would have been to stop wasting money, stop production, and use M1917’s. There were over two million M1917’s made, more than enough to arm the AEF, the rifle was 100% successful as a combat rifle, and it was a more advanced combat rifle than the 03. However, the M1917 was made outside the Government Arsenal system. The Army wanted to keep their Arsenal lines going and they liked the 03.

The second question is how did Hatcher get these safety reports? Safety incident reports are not released to the public or to anyone in the Army. Only Safety investigators and law enforcement have access. That is why you cannot find anything about Army accidents, incidents, etc, in the public domain. The only reports you will find are those that are so scandalous that they make the evening news. Following your logic, since there are zero reports, there are no accidents, now, or then. To pry anything out, you need to get a lawyer and work a FOIA. Good luck on finding an accident report database from 1917.

[slamfire]

After considering the proceedings of the Board, the Chief of Field Service, Brigadier General Samuel Hof, on February 7, 1928, made the following recommendation of the Chief of Ordnance, which was approved as a policy:

"Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents may be somewhat more frequent. On the other hand, some of theses early rifles have been in use for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of the rifles of low numbers in the hands of troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand, I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifles from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, that such rifles be set aside and considered as a war reserve and the question of the ultimate replacement of the receivers be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped."

Only low number rifles in need of repair were recommended to be scrapped. All others were fit for combat use as official policy of the United States Army.

At the time, it would have been the low cost solution for the Army. The Army did not have to go to Capital Hill at a time when Congress was funding, essentially nothing, for National Defense, and beg for money. Times were mean back then. There were no social services, no food stamps, no welfare. If you were not working, you were not eating Typically an industrial worker received a lump sum, if that, for an on the job injury. The worker went home, never drew a paycheck, was a burden on his family. Then, injuries were handled similar to College Sports today; the College is only responsible for stabilizing the injured student. Once the student is able to walk and talk, he is discharged from the hospital. If he can’t play, he loses his scholarship and goes home. If he requires long term continuing medical care, it is on his dime. Prior to WW1 this was the same in the military . But, after WW1 any injured Soldier/Sailor/Marine could fight the precursors to the VA to get benefits.

http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/a...y_in_brief.pdf “The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918 authorized the establishment of an independent agency, the Federal Board for Vocational Education. Under the new law, any honorably discharged disabled veteran of World War I was eligible for vocational rehabilitation training. Those incapable of carrying on a gainful occupation were also eligible for special maintenance allowances. The Bureau of War Risk Insurance was responsible for screening veterans for eligibility. A 1919 law fixed responsibility for medical care of veterans with Public Health Service, transferred a number of military hospitals to Public Health Service.”

However, the funding for Rehabilitation did not come out of the Army Budget. Therefore injuring Soldier/Sailors/Marines was the low cost solution. It cost the services nothing but short term medical care.


So, is this Official Policy moral, or immoral?

[Crashyoung]

Getting somewhat back on track, is there a possibility that
the cartridges were to blame, and politics were causing the
reporting to be blamed on the receivers?

I have seen pictures of the failures, and in some cases, the
cone of the barrel was sheered off by the failure. The barrels
and cartridges were never questioned in the failures, just the
receivers.

Another factor pointing at the cartridge is the fact the rifle
was provided with a case extractor. How many times in recent
history has anyone here had to extract a case that had ripped
apart in the chamber?

The cartridge design began with a longer case length than what
was standardized later. Could the wrong cartridge cases have been
issued or sold to the surplus market, and been the real cause
of the failures?

In some cases, the failure was blamed on a barrel obstruction.
Most of the reported obstructions could cause a catastrophic
cartridge failure, but what if the case was too long, and the
shooter forced the bolt closed, ramming the tip of the case
into the leede? Would the pinching of the bullet be enough to
cause an excess pressure event resulting in the cartridge to
rupture?

Being in service so long, the early number receivers should
have failed more often, if the receiver was the only cause of
the failure. Being weak or subject of fracture isn't the prime
reason a receiver would fail. Many people have shown the
early number receivers withstood many overloaded 'proof'
loads without incident, but no one ever tried over length
cartridges.

Case length is one of the things I always double check when
reloading. Modern factory cases that I have used have never
been too long, unless fired and resized a few times.

This isn't an excuse to grab the first low number rifle and
start shooting it. I would caution anyone to have the rifle
inspected before using it.
My latest acquisition was magnafluxed before I used it.
If I had access to X-ray inspection, I might just have that
done, just to 'see' what my receiver looks like!

I also visually inspect the barrel before shooting, as I have
found it better to be safe than sorry!

[slamfire]

Early ammunition had its problems too. There is no doubt, as I have read the period comments, that ammunition of the period was highly variable in quality, and did not get better with age. This is also a self inflicted wound by the Army, they bought all this stuff, certifying when they bought it that the ammunition was made to standard. Under the rush of wartime production, a lot of substandard stuff was shipped. This is true for any war, you just have to read the accounts of the people who were there.

Even in peacetime, period production philosophy was quite different from today. They stuck Quality Inspectors at the end of the lines and it was their job to sort out the good from the bad. This philosophy extended to the 70's, a GM executive famously said (in answer to poor GM cars) that "manufacturing made it, marketing sold it and customer service made it work". GM almost went bankrupt when American's discovered cheap, reliable, Japanese cars.

No one should think for a moment that the process control of the period had any sophistication. Pyrometers should have been used at Springfield Armory in the forge rooms, and they were not, but then, pyrometers were new in 1901. The excuse given at the time for bursting 03 receivers was "too much case hardening". And that could have been one cause. All of this makes me believe that the WW1 era Arsenals were ships that leaked in a lot of seams. The metal used in 03 barrels was just as primitive, I have seen a number of 03 blow up pictures where the barrel gave way. Cartridges were also made under primitive process controls, a bad cartridge gives way and the metal of the receiver or barrel does not have the margin to hold up. But since the quality was so variable, maybe the next one would.

People today have no sense of history and no sense of the technology of the period. They project back today's technology and expect things 100 years ago to be the same as today. Well it was not. The good old days were rotten.

[firstflabn]

Great powers of concentration you have. Once the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918 gets mentioned, I can hardly think of anything else.

[kragluver]

It is not true to state that only the Marines carried '03's in France. M1917s armed roughly 2/3 - 3/4 of the AEF. The rest were armed with '03s. Generally speaking, the regular Army units kept their 1903s. Gaurd and National Army (i.e., draftees) units were equipped with '17s. This is not an across the board true statement, but generally so.

My G-grandfather served in the 6th Division - Regular Army from 1913 until 1919. I have photos that he took of his buddies in France. They are holding 1903s. All pictures I've ever seen of the 1st Division at the time (of which there are quite a few) show them with '03s.

Chances are there were receiver failures in France during combat operations. They were very likely not well documented. Today they would have been. The US had roughly 330,000 casualties in roughly 5.5 months of hard combat (June 1919 until Nov 11) - that's 60,000 men per month. I don't think they paid much attention to what was probably a small number of receiver failures.

I'm of the opinion that if you truly want to shoot a LN '03, test it yourself first by whacking the receiver hard with a hammer. If it shatters - you shouldn't shoot it. If it doesn't - you might be okay. (That last was said tongue in cheek.) My point is that not many of us would risk whacking our fine collectable 1903 with a hammer - it might break - which is just the point!

[Kurt]

Slamfire, Just want to say, excellent points and a reality check included.

Kurt

[kragluver]

Slamfire - your mention of ships reminds me.... current thinking on the Titanic disaster is... wait for it... brittle steel in the rivets used to fasten the hull plates! Instead of taking the bending when striking the iceberg, rivets shattered unzipping a very large seam - much larger than should have occurred in the collision. Those rivets were heated cherry red before being installed - no process control in the heating.

The bottom line is that the need for steel process controls were learned through some very hard, painful lessons in the early years.

[PhillipM]

There is a difference but, unless you know original design intent, you don’t know why the Swiss cut their chambers a little longer. Maybe it is was due to grease clearance, mud clearance, or something else.
But I am not worried due to the number of 303 British, 308 cartridges that I have fired with greased bullets and greased cases.

The Royal Society has the right idea: Their motto is to “accept nothing on authority.” Knowledge is to be based on observations/tests in the physical world, and if authority conflicts with these observations, then authority is wrong. There has always been a continuing fight against dogma created by authority figures.

Based on my observations greased bullets, greased cases do not raise pressures. Grease does not pinch the bullet in the case neck, and I believe it is because as pressure builds in a case the neck starts expanding from behind the bullet, rolling forward toward the case mouth until the bullet is released. This has the effect of moving the grease, grease may be “incompressible” but it is not immovable.

I fired over 1000 rounds of greased 303 British and I greased the heck out of 308 Cavim. I had a case of the stuff, maybe 1500 rounds, currently the brass fills two complete 50 caliber ammunition cans. I wanted to fire the stuff in my FAL, I did not want the cases to stretch, so I put ammunition in plastic bags, dropped in tablespoons worth (actually fingerdips) of Casteroil stick wax in the bags and shook the stuff. Stick wax was a bad idea. Stick wax http://www.freemansupply.com/CastrolIloformStic.htm is tenacious stuff, it is meant to stick to saw blades as they cut through metal or ceramic. Casteroil stick wax is very thick and did not apply smoothly. After shaking in a bag, I had huge clumps of stick wax all over the ammunition. When I loaded and fired the stuff a mist of stick wax formed in the air. The rifle was coated, my clothes were coated, my glasses were coated, and the stuff does not wash off in plain water. But something interesting happened. I was able to open the gas system in my FAL by more than a couple of clicks and still have reliable function. For those who don’t have a FAL, you adjust the cycling by bleeding off gas until the bolt is no longer held by the follower. Then you add a click or two. I was able to verify that lubricated ammunition reduced breech friction significantly, and by increasing the gas bleed, made the rifle cycle smoother and with less banging and slamming.

Still, the plume of stick wax was objectionable and I ended up wiping down the cases. I left stick wax on, but not in the thick, clumpy quantities. The cases were covered from head to toe with a thin coating of stick wax, and I shot them that way. Shot them in bolt rifles, M1a’s, FAL’s, anything of mine that was in 308.

Since I don’t have copper fouling problems with modern jacketed bullets I don’t have to grease my bullets, but I lubricate my cases and have not encountered any pressure issues. I have shot out two barrels on one M1a, another on another, shot out match 308 barrels, one AR15 barrel, no problems.

Those who have the energy to go page by page from every Arms and the Man at Google books, such as I, will find that pre WW1, greasing bullets was the norm. Shooters are bragging about the accuracy, about shooting 3000, 7000 greased rounds without bore fouling or cleaning. There are actually pictures of greasing devices, for clubs! However I notice a tension in the articles of shooters: while they don’t see evidence of harm in their own rifles and ammunition, yet rifles are blowing up and behind the scenes the Ordnance Department must be claiming the blow up’s are due to grease. Not until 1918 does the Army actually put out a statement in print that Army rifles do not blow up more frequently than any other rifle and when an 03 blows up, it is due to shooter stupidity. Incidentally, this is after the production of single heat treat receivers is discontinued. No one outside of the Ordnance Department is aware of the dangerously defective rifles the Army is manufacturing, issuing and selling, and the Army is not telling.

The blowups referenced by Dick Culver were from shooting greased TIN CAN ammo issued in the 1921 national matches that had cold soldered itself to the neck, not greasing any other 30-06 cartridge. I'm glad you know more than Springfield and Frankford arsenals combined when it comes to greased tin can bullets.


"Frankford and Springfield found that the incompressible grease would not allow the neck of the case to expand and release the bullet from the "cold solder job" in the neck of the case. Greasing the bullets had the potential of creating an explosive situation..."

"Human nature being what it is, many continued to lubricate the new ammunition causing
several wrecked rifles. In every instance, the cause was traced to the prohibited use of
grease on the ammunition. At least one projectile was found downrange with the neck of the
cartridge case still firmly attached to the bullet and exhibiting rifling marks on the brass. The
probable chamber pressure of that round can only be imagined."

http://www.jouster.com/sea_stories/w...ed_history.pdf

[slamfire]

1. The blowups referenced by Dick Culver were from shooting greased TIN CAN ammo issued in the 1921 national matches that had cold soldered itself to the neck, not greasing any other 30-06 cartridge. I'm glad you know more than Springfield and Frankford arsenals combined when it comes to greased tin can bullets.


"Frankford and Springfield found that the incompressible grease would not allow the neck of the case to expand and release the bullet from the "cold solder job" in the neck of the case. Greasing the bullets had the potential of creating an explosive situation..."

"Human nature being what it is, many continued to lubricate the new ammunition causing
several wrecked rifles. In every instance, the cause was traced to the prohibited use of
grease on the ammunition. At least one projectile was found downrange with the neck of the
cartridge case still firmly attached to the bullet and exhibiting rifling marks on the brass. The
probable chamber pressure of that round can only be imagined."

http://www.jouster.com/sea_stories/w...ed_history.pdf

Unfortunately what you reference only shows the distorting effect when authority figures initiate and perpetuate an Ordnance Department coverup.

This is the official in print version:

Arms and the Man, Editorial by Brig-Gen Fred H. Phillips, Jr, Secretary NRA

1921 The National Match Ammunition

Use of the national Match ammunition through the Camp Perry shooting season has amply demonstrated that, in the hands of intelligent rifleman, the “tin can” cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe.

The fact that the National Matches closed without recording one serious accident in connection with the use of this ammunition seems to be a final and clinching argument, that when properly handled, no disastrous results may be expect. The only instance of rifles having been damaged-there were two out of the thousand-odd in use that suffered from “blow back”-were cause the presence of grease in excessive quantity and were the result of the shooter’s own carelessness. Fortunately the men who experience the blow backs were only superficially hurt. The lesion, however, in connection with the blow backs was plain.

Anyone who wants to go page by page through the Arms and the Man magazines, like I have, on Google Books, can read it for themselves.

IF the “tin can” cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe. is not a BALD FACE LIE by an active duty Army General, in print, in a national periodical, representing the Army's position in this matter, then I don't know what a lie is.

At some level we have to believe authority figures, no human knows it all . So I understand why people who don’t have enough of a background to recognize this as a cover up believe Hatcher's misdirection and General Phillip's lie. Given the gabbling through the decades the US shooting flock considers Hatcher's misdirection gospel, basic to their life, the foundation of their existence and meaning, (maybe over the top on that) but the whole problem of the tin can ammunition was the tin bonding to the case neck, creating a bore obstruction, and had nothing to do with grease.

And in that, I do know more than all of Frankfort Arsenal, Springfield Arsenal, and Dick Culver combined on greased bullets and the tin can ammunition.

However, Hatcher is more interesting. He had all the information, he was a participant in everything, he saw the greased Swiss bullets when he competed on the US rifle team in Switzerland , he went through WW2 as Chief of Ordnance and built over 100,000 20mm oerlikon autocannons that used greased ammunition, and yet, when it comes to greased ammunition and his book, it is all bad. Interesting to me, previous to the publication of Hatcher’s Notebook was Major Earl Naramore’s 1937 Book Handloading. http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/Cla...20-%201943.pdf . In the 1920’s , Major Naramore is a frequent contributor to Arms and the Man. He is a true expert ballistician, a truthful man, and I expect his 1937 book was written close to or after his retirement. And this is what Major Naramore says about the tin can ammunition:

Page 159

The ammunition made a Frankford Arsenal for the 1921 National Matches had bullets heavily plated with tin. This ammunition was satisfactory when first loaded. Tin has an affinity for brass and in this ammunition the tin combined with the insides of the case necks, forming a union between the bullet and the case just as though the bullets were soldered in place. This union is so strong that it is impossible to extract the bullets and if the ammunition is fired, dangerous pressures will develop. Most of this lot of ammunition, the only one so loaded, has been shot or destroyed, but anyone running across any of it should destroy it or preserve it only as a curiosity in the development of ammunition It should under no circumstances be fired. The marking on the case heads is, F.A. 21-R

What I find remarkable is that Hatcher, writing his book in 1947, did not acknowledge this and yet Hatcher was the illustrator of Naramore's book Handloading!!!. Instead, in his book, Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher discards all evidence that bonding between the bullet and case as the cause of the blowups, and repeats all the old, false, misleading theories about grease pinching the bullets.

Want to speculate about his motives?

I'm of the opinion that if you truly want to shoot a LN '03, test it yourself first by whacking the receiver hard with a hammer. If it shatters - you shouldn't shoot it. If it doesn't - you might be okay. (That last was said tongue in cheek.) My point is that not many of us would risk whacking our fine collectable 1903 with a hammer - it might break - which is just the point!

I agree on that. That is exactly what Hugh Douglas did and wrote about it in the May-June 1985 issue of Rifle Magazine. He took five or six low number 03 receivers, held them in his hand, and with the nylon faced hammer in his other hand, hit them. They all shattered either through the receiver ring, the right receiver rail, or the rear receiver ring. All of them. And he shattered a double heat treat too!!

In another forum, a poster said that the Marine Corp sorted out their "good" from "bad" single heat treat receivers by hitting them with hammers. Those that broke, well it does not take an Einstein to figure they were bad.

I think the hammer test a good idea. Hit that single heat treat receiver and make it ring. If it breaks, post the pictures.

This one came cracked from the CMP: