Confusion on LN 03's

[ClaudeH]

I wish someone else would either document this or refute it because my books are packed away too far to even find right now and I don't have the time to do a tabulation. That said...

My impression from Brophy was that there was a time period when there was more or less a spike in LN failures and that time period more or less coincided with the experimental tin-plated bullets from Frankfort (?) Arsenal which were primarily match (?) rounds. It was found that this ammo created an electro-chemical weld of the bullet to the cartridge case which created immense pressures.

This ammo also caused globular tin fouling of the barrels whcih some target shooters attempted to alleviete by dipping the exposed portion of the bullet into grease. This was very risky because grease in the chamber neck can prevent the neck from properly expanding when fired, again creating immense pressures.

The combination of factors could cause doubly immense pressures.

My impression was that if you removed the failures occurring about the time this ammo and greasing practice were wreaking havoc, the remaining failures were just about statistically insignificant.

Now I know that there have been additional failures over the years and that knowledgeable people have found receivers so brittle they shatter when dropped or struck witha hammer, so I certainly am not about to say that shooting LN receivers is safe. But I suspect the fear of firing them is overblown and that prudent behaviors such as testing your receiver with a hammer and shooting only reloads put up in brass proven not to have case-head voids and flaws should greatly minimalize the risk for occasional firing.

But that's just me. Does anyone have a comment on the timeline of failures versus the tin-plated bullets?

[Johnny P]

The failures of the high number 1903's were nothing like the catastrophic failures of the single heat treatment receivers. On the high number rifles the receivers remained intact.

Hatcher recorded only those failures that he could document. Serial number 609 is in the SRS data as having failed in February of 1918 while in possession of the Navy, but is not recorded in Hatcher's data.

[JimF]

. . . . . . But I suspect the fear of firing them is overblown and that prudent behaviors such as testing your receiver with a hammer and shooting only reloads put up in brass proven not to have case-head voids and flaws should greatly minimalize the risk for occasional firing. . . . .

I agree . . . .

Furthermore, for SA receivers, it was the ORDNANCE DEPT. that ARBITRARILY selected the "magic" serial number of 800,000 as the "line of demarcation" as to double-heat-treated receivers . . . . NOT Springfield Armory!!

Springfield Armory put the switch to DHT receivers at BETWEEN #750,000 and #780,000!

Now, who are you going to believe . . . . Ordnance people?

Or the people that MADE the bolts/receivers!! --Jim

[jgaynor]

I wish someone else would either document this or refute it because my books are packed away too far to even find right now and I don't have the time to do a tabulation. That said...

My impression from Brophy was that there was a time period when there was more or less a spike in LN failures and that time period more or less coincided with the experimental tin-plated bullets from Frankfort (?) Arsenal which were primarily match (?) rounds. It was found that this ammo created an electro-chemical weld of the bullet to the cartridge case which created immense pressures.

This ammo also caused globular tin fouling of the barrels whcih some target shooters attempted to alleviete by dipping the exposed portion of the bullet into grease. This was very risky because grease in the chamber neck can prevent the neck from properly expanding when fired, again creating immense pressures.

The combination of factors could cause doubly immense pressures.

My impression was that if you removed the failures occurring about the time this ammo and greasing practice were wreaking havoc, the remaining failures were just about statistically insignificant.

Now I know that there have been additional failures over the years and that knowledgeable people have found receivers so brittle they shatter when dropped or struck witha hammer, so I certainly am not about to say that shooting LN receivers is safe. But I suspect the fear of firing them is overblown and that prudent behaviors such as testing your receiver with a hammer and shooting only reloads put up in brass proven not to have case-head voids and flaws should greatly minimalize the risk for occasional firing.

But that's just me. Does anyone have a comment on the timeline of failures versus the tin-plated bullets?

Tin plated ammunition was introduced in 1921 as a possible means of reducing copper fouling in the barrels.
The decision to change the production process for SA produced M1903 rifles was undertaken a few years earlier during WW1.

I believe the tin plated ammunition was limited to National Match Cartridges so the scope of the problem was self limiting. However, Claude you do reason correctly. If you had the incredible bad luck to encounter a low numbered rifle with a "burned" receiver and fire a tin plated cartridge there probably would be a higher than normal chance of a blowup.

Of the 60 odd accidents recorded in the Hatcher data most occurred during the 20's with ordinary .30 cal Ball. The decision to halt rifle production and redesign the manufacturing process, in the middle of a war, based on a handful of accidents required a real pair of brass ones on the part of the responsible ordnance officials. What we don't know (or at least what I don't know) is what percentage of rifles were blown up during proof testing.

Regards,

Jim

[Crashyoung]

I shoot my LN 03 with all kinds of commercial and my own reloaded cartridges.

Two things cause the failures, bad brass, and obstructed barrels.
While I shoot my 1913, You should read http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
and make up your own mind about shooting it or not.

Also look up balloon head cartridge.

[PhillipM]

IMHO Hatcher's Notebook is THE source to read regarding the LN Springfield question.
He found the bad vintages were from 1906 and 1911 IIRC. Both the steel and the manufacturing processes were improved and the decision was made in the late 1920s to eventually withdraw the LNs from service, due to the tight defense budgets of those years that was not implemented.

This is not accurate, the board investigating the low numbers recommended withdrawing them but ordnance deferred making a decision.

Some have opined that SA didn't have much to do to keep the doors open in this timeframe and declaring the national arsenal's rifles unsafe and therefore needing new ones was a political move.

[chuckindenver]

low number 1903s should not be fired with live ammo... telling anyone to do so, is not a wise idea...

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

low number 1903s should not be fired with live ammo... telling anyone to do so, is not a wise idea...

The Marines fought through WWI with LN 03's. They didn't complain - ever.

jt

[rcmkhm]

Jim, regarding the tin plated ammunition. It was supposed to reduce copper fouling so was the problem that it had more of a tendency to "bind up" somewhere down the barrel creating abnormal pressure? I've never even seen a tin plated round. What did the round look like and was it marked on the bottom of the case? Also, I've looked online and couldn't find anything on reported incidents of failures during WWI in France. Anyone ever hear of that? I suspect that the censors wouldn't have wanted that reported to the folks back home even if it did happen. Chip

[PhillipM]

rcmkhm,



Here is an excellent write up by Hap Rocketto

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...mmunition.html

...and another by Ray Meketa

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...mmunition.html