What to fire in a LN receiver

[joem]

I shoot my LN Sa a bit but the loads are just enough to operate my M1's and the only powder I use is 4895.

[Rick B]

Chuck finally found another exploded 03 to boast about. Let me see,,, I think about 5 M14's and a handful of Garand blew in that time. He actually banned me from a Face Book board when I asked great questions for his screaming "FIRE" all the time. I proved him dead wrong but his feelings were hurt. Sad.


Original Poster. Just shoot real G.I. 30-06 and you should have no problems. I have looked all over the net for people dying or even having these blow but can find hundred of other type rifles before I find more than 3 1903's. Rick B

[Rock]

Receiver ring failures similar to low number 03 failures....



http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=20626&page=2

6_5X5501vi-1.jpg


http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-Mauser-m-1896

DSC_0277cre-vi.jpg


http://www.hipointfirearmsforums.com...9/index17.html

k312.jpg

[slamfire]

First I am going to give my safety lecture on these old receivers:

The first and foremost risk associated with low number receivers is lack of material property consistency due to non existing temperature controls. A burnt billet of steel cannot be improved through heat treatment or any process. Burnt is burnt. Steels forged and heat treated as inconsistently as the low number Springfield’s are going to vary widely in hardness and structural integrity. As Hatcher says, in Hatcher’s Notebook page 222: In one of the experiments at Springfield Armory, 48 receivers were carefully re-heat treated, after which 16, or one-third, failed on high pressure test. Some people may consider a 33 1/3% failure rate acceptable, but I don't think so.

As for heat treatment, I have read Crossman, Sharpe, and others, and it is clear to me, all they know is heat treatment. They carp about heat treatment this and heat treatment that, but they are totally clueless as to the real problem in the Arsenals: lack of temperature instrumentation. Every time a metal part was exposed to heat there was no temperature gage to determine the temperature. Pyrometic cones go back to the 1780's, but there is no evidence that Springfield Armory was even using that simple temperature technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometric_cone Instead, Springfield Armory was using medieval process controls: human eyeballs. There is a short article in my 1914 Machinery Handbook about the unreliability of human eyes in determining steel temperatures, but I guess no one within the Ordnance Department paid any attention to that issue. It was inevitable that steel parts were being made brittle because humans can't accurately judge steel temperatures with their eyeballs. At least not within the forging temperature limits of the steels they used.

This is an excellent post by Firstflabn

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showth...nking%29/page2

A sure sign this discussion is in big trouble is when I have to save it with my metallurgical expertise. But, since in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I'll do like OJ and take a stab at it.

First, Hatcher was no metallurgist. Even in the context of the science of his day, he was a beginner. I think he says he took ONE course in metallurgy. He says a couple of really stupid things in his Notebook, but that discussion can wait for another day.

A couple of comments:

1. According to a chart prepared by the Tempil stick folks (if you don't know what a Tempil stick is, stop reading and go find out, you won't benefit by going further now), there is only about a 100 deg F difference between the top of the safe forging temp range and the bottom of the burnt temp range. Therefore, it is ludicrous to believe SA didn't have pyrometers in their forge shop, Hatcher or no. Further, the FY18 report in Brophy's SA book says they installed improved pyrometers in the hardening shop. Why would they have the good stuff - and upgrade it - to use on a much less critical operation at a 1000 F lower temp and none at all in the forging shop?

If the pre-1918 forge temp range is the same as the 1942 spec presented in Brophy (p. 549) - 2300-2340 F - then SA is into the 100 deg F no mans land between safely forging and burning.

2. The plot thickens - as carbon content rises, the burnt temp drops. Brophy shows a carbon range of .30 to .38 for receivers. Moving from .30 to .38 LOWERS the burnt temp by about 30 deg F. Interestingly, the FY18 report celebrates their brand new chemical lab which allows them to (apparently for the first time) do a chemical analysis "for all the steel entering into components or tools." This smells like they previously had only checked the paperwork from the outside supplier providing the receiver blanks. 30 deg may matter if you're bumping up against the safe max temp already.

3. According to the Tempil chart, the forging range is a bit over 600 F wide. Thus, SA wrote specs to operate at the tippy top of the safe range. They might have been worried about forging laps, etc., but that kind of defect would probably have been revealed in proof firing - so, they were concerned about budget (in peacetime) and production (in wartime), not burnt steel.

4. Interpreting the Tempil chart on my ancient monitor, there is no discernable difference in color between the top of the safe range and the bottom of the burnt range (100 F, remember). I'd have to ask someone with foundry experience, but Hatcher's story sounds suspect to me - he may not have known enough to call BS on the "cloudy days" cover story.

3. Another reference I have warns that care must be taken when working forgings that have been heated to near the max safe forging temp as getting in too big a hurry (whomping with the whomper) will raise the forging's temp from friction. My bet is that when that happens, the chewy chocolate center is hotter than the outside, so even modern pyrometers would not help.

I suspect this knowledge existed in heavy industries doing really big pieces - locomotive, ship building, hydropower, etc., but that the combination of stodgy old ordnance officers and budget parsimony created an avoidable (but inevitable) f*ck up.

What I wish I could find out is whether the acid etch test (to identify burnt steel) was available in those other industries before WWI. I have no experience with it, but from my materials lab knowledge it doesn't look too tough to perform and interpret. It's a destructive test, but I wonder if the edge of the tang or one side of the recoil lug could be tested and still have a functioning receiver (with possibility of leaving no more than a blemish). I'm no longer in the testing business, so I don't know who to call for a freebie. If it could be done and only leave a minor boo boo, somebody could have a booming business. The test is 100% reliable, though the interpretaion is visual, so might need a practiced eye.

I'm tired of hearing myself type, so I'm out.

Currently there is an interesting program on the history channel: Forged in Fire. Four knife/sword makers are given three hours to forge a knife blade from some blob of steel. It is worth watching this part, as even though the contestants are highly skilled, they forge by eyeball and there are a surprising number of burnt knife blanks that get created in the rush. The steel gets a little too hot, and the blade either breaks on the anvil, or there are visible cracks in the blade. I saw one episode where the tester refused to test one blade with multiple cracks as it was highly likely the blade would fail and the tester would be injured in the test. I have seen a number of knives that looked OK, but on chopping tests, proved to be too brittle by losing big half moon chunks out of the edge, or the blade simply breaks.

It is also likely that Springfield Armory created a perverse incentive in the forge shop. I have heard that the workers were paid piece rate. It would have been in their economic advantage to crank the temperatures up, make the billets softer, and stamp out more parts in a given time period. Management created these incentives and if management created an incentive with encouraged the creation of defective parts, then whose fault is it if the parts come out bad?

Another issue with these old receivers is the single heat treatment as practiced by Springfield Armory was just a heat and a quench, which is actually a very poor heat treatment. Even period books, my first edition Machinery’s Handbook shows they should have done a heat, quench, and temper, to relive stresses. As primitive the heat treatment of these early receivers, so was the process technology at the steel factories that produced the steel which these rifles were made from. People without a historical understanding of technology just don’t know how little the people back then knew, and how primitive the process controls of the period. Primary instrumentation was often a human’s sense of sight, smell, taste, touch. The end result was that the steels of that period had a lot of slag and impurities. The exact same steel made today would be cleaner and have better material properties. These same steels are being made today but used as rebar, or rail road ties. These are applications which are not high stress and where ultra low cost is the most desired property.

The plain carbon steels used in the single heat treat and double heat treat receivers were technologically obsolescent in 1918. If you remember, the British used nickle steel in the P1914, and so did we in the P1917 rifle. In a few short years plain carbon steels were being replaced with alloy steels for a number of very good reasons. Metal technology advanced quickly in the first and second decade of the 20 century, and even more rapidly after 1920. Post WW1 it was painfully obvious that the use of plain carbon steels in safety critical or stressing environments was not technically justifiable. The American metallurgist Edgar Bain, http://www.nasonline.org/publication...in-edgar-c.pdf in 1932 published conclusive experiments on carbons steels. Bain heat treated identical plain carbon steel coupons under identical conditions and examined the coupons afterwards for hardness depth. Etched coupons steel, show that these plain carbon steels have erratic hardening depths, given that all else is equal. These steels were called in WW2 era text books as “shallow hardening”. This was meant not as praise but as a pejorative. Inconsistent hardening provides inconsistent material properties. It is undesirable to create parts some of which will be hard through and through but others soft below the surface even though the heating processes are the same for all parts. But use plain carbon steels, and you will create such inconsistent parts, just by the nature of the material.

Therefore, you would expect even properly forged, properly heat treated single heat treat and double heat treat receivers to vary considerable in hardness depth, which then affects the properties of the end part.

Yield is an extremely important material property, for above yield, the part deforms. Once a steel part yields it is no longer safe to use. What happens after yield is unpredictable, often it takes less load to cause more deformation, ultimate load is the load it takes to break the part. Alloy steels always have a higher yield, typically about 20% more for the same carbon content. There is another material advantage with alloy steels: increased toughness. For a device, such as a receiver, which is going to be subjected to impact loading, toughness is a highly desirable property. Toughness is directly related to fatigue lifetime, which is the number of loading cycles to failure. Assuming the yield is sufficient for the load, the tougher material will have a longer service life. Alloy steels have a greater toughness than plain carbon steels. Alloy steels take more energy to shear, Charpy impact tests are a direct predictor of a steel’s fatigue lifetime. It is a revelation to see just how shear energy decreases with temperature, and at low temperature, alloy steels take several times the energy to shear as do plain carbon steels.

Old single heat treat receivers are a very significant unknown quantity. We know they were made in a factory that did not have temperature controls, we know that the material varies considerably in properties after heat treatment, and that the service life of the part will always be less to one made out of a good alloy steel. Just how many service lives have these old receivers been though? How many more load cycles will they take before failure? How will they react in an overpressure situation?

Based on all the pictures of blown receiver rings, these things will fragment. I am always surprised when I run into people who at first blush, appear educated and intelligent. But it was a surprise to be told by a “03 expert” that low number receivers are safer than later production because they fragment. That is when I found that crazy people can look the same as sane people. The concept this expert had was that a rupture somehow dropped pressure and that made everything OK. It is my opinion that having a fragmentation grenade in front of my face is far more dangerous than not having a fragmentation grenade in front of face.

Literally millions of people have been killed by metal fragments flying around at high speed. You can look at old cannon balls, Civil War examples abound, the things are filled with cast iron balls and gun powder. When fuses got better, artillery used shrapnel. If any one remembers, the Boston bombers packed their pressure cooker full of metallic objects to increase the lethality of the device. When one of these old receivers fragment, there are chunks of metal flying about at high speed and in unpredictable directions. It is amazing that no one was killed or seriously hurt in the pictured example of a low number 03, but don’t doubt for a second that there is not enough power in that blowup to blow a chunk of steel to the back of your skull. Then, you die.

Therefore, regardless of the desires of the Hatcher fan base and the hoopla around double heat treat receivers, plain carbon steels are inferior in all aspects to alloy steels. As a class low number receivers have a number of identified risks. The process control technology they were made produced 300,000 thousand structurally deficient rifles and a number of people were severely injured when their rifles blew up. The steels of the era were inconsistent in composition and inherently inconsistent in final properties after heat treatment. Also, these steels were rather primitive, by WW2, called low grade, due to their lack of strength and ductility. It is my opinion that a combination of false economy and just reluctance to change by the Chief Metallurgist is why Springfield Armory kept using plain carbon steels even when early in the 20th century, it was obvious that these steels were rapidly becoming obsolescent, and by the 1920’s, they were obsolete for this application. All of these receivers have been around a long time. Some have been through a number of service lives, at some point they will fail through structural fatigue, just when, I don’t know.

However assessing risk on a large population is a lot easier than assessing risk on an individual receiver. I am not going to say, sight unseen, and untested, that any low number receiver is safe or defective. I can’t. But I can say, as a population, there is a lot of risk in the group.

A simple test of a low number receiver, to determine brittleness, is to do what the Marine Corp did. Take the action out of the stock, take the bolt out, and hit it sharply with a heavy steel hammer a number of times. Make it ring, make it ring loudly. Whack it on the receiver ring, the right rail, and the rear bridge. If it shatters, you had a defective low number receiver, and you saved yourself from potential injury.

As for loads, if your receiver is one of those structural deficient types, then really no load is safe. At some round count in the future, the receiver is going to fail. Its failure will be accelerated compared to a “good one” because the material is compromised. It would be nice of one of those experts around here measured the receiver seats, and the ring sidewalls, and gave an estimate of the fatigue lifetime of “good one”. I am of the opinion that it is not infinite even though these were designed before the concept of fatigue failure was well defined. Today, a small arm of this type is designed to a service life, which will be an estimated number or rounds till failure. For a light duty item, which a service rifle is, about 10,000 would be the upper limit, probably 6,000 rounds being the lower limit. Six thousand rounds is the endurance test requirement for M1 Garands, M14’s, and M16’s. After 6,000 rounds the rifle has completed its service life, goes back to rebuild, and anything and everything can be replaced as necessary. I talked to Roland Beaver, USMC gunsmith, he worked on a Garand rebuild line and they tossed lots of Garand receivers in the scrap bin.

So for loads, the period load was a 150ish grain bullet around 2700 fps at less than 50,000 psia. As powder technology developed, pressures decreased. I have seen 1930's data where match ammunition was in the low 40,000 psia range. The stuff was used in machine guns but I don't know if they measured port pressure. But given that the port pressure was OK, the round was loaded to a velocity as it was unlikely with IMR pressures that the pressure limit would be exceeded. Upon testing of ball ammunition, I find that vintage ball ammunition is not that hot, by today's standards.

I have shot tens of thousands of 30-06 rounds in NRA competitions. Don't shoot the old smoke pole as much as I used to, but I did a lot of testing over a chronograph to determine what was going one with my loads.

M98 26" 1-10 Wilson Barrel


150 gr FMJBT TW 56 Ball

24 Mar 04 T= 70 ° F

Ave Vel = 2680
Std Dev = 31
ES = 78
Low = 2620
High = 2698
N = 6


150 gr FMJBT 1966 Ball

14 Nov 2011 T= 68 ° F

Ave Vel = 2596
Std Dev = 47
ES = 190
Low = 2498
High = 2688

Group Size: Surprisingly good ammunition.

150 gr Sierra Match HPBT 47.5 IMR 4895 CCI#34 WW2 cases
OAL 3.290"
24 Mar 04 T= 70 ° F

Ave Vel = 2722
Std Dev = 26
ES = 76
Low = 2673
High = 2749
N = 10

Group Size: All in ten ring, very mild load,


A match load, I have shot thousands of 168 Match bullets in my match 30-06’s and it is a superlative bullet.
A very accurate 200 yards standing and sitting load is a 168 with 42.0 grains IMR 4895. I chronographed that load with a 175 FMJBT .match load

175 FMJBT 42.0 grs IMR 4895 wtd WLR WW2 brass OAL 3.30"

17 Sept 00 T=72 ° F

Ave Vel = 2451
Std Dev = 15
ES = 51
Low = 2429
High = 2480
N = 9


My standard match load was a 168 grain Match over 47.0 grains IMR 4895.

168 gr Nosler Match 47.0 IMR 4895 thrown lot L7926 FA/LC cases WLR (brass) OAL 3.30"

Greased to case shoulders by dip and twist in Lubriplate AA130

13 Aug 2014 T = 80 °F

Ave Vel = 2650
Std Dev = 16
ES = 46
High = 2675
Low = 2629
N = 8


I have shot all of these loads in my M1903A3 and it shoots, more or less, to the sight settings. The 47 grain load can be cut a grain or two and it won’t hurt anything.

[louis]

Slam fire, This was a great posting!! Very educational not just an opinion. You should copy and post this to the "Ln1903 not what you think" post as it's also a very heated debate. Thanks for you input.

[Griff Murphey]

I got interested in military firearms in Junior ROTC beginning in 1964, and I enjoyed cruising the ZM Military Research, Service Armament, INTERARMS, and Ye Olde Hunter catalogs and ads which provided many happy hours of fantasy shopping. Those ads, if they were for 03's, ALWAYS described them as low or high number. As I recall the going rate for high numbers and A-3s was $39.95 and low numbers were $10 to $15 lower.

We also had WHB Smith's BOOK OF RIFLES in the den, which explained the issue thoroughly. I just find it interesting that the OP collected for 30 years and only recently heard of the issue. I guess part of that issue is: it was such common knowledge that at a certain point people simply stopped talking about it.

Slamfire's post really IS great.

[swampyankee]

[QUOTE=Griff Murphey;

. I just find it interesting that the OP collected for 30 years and only recently heard of the issue. I guess part of that issue is: it was such common knowledge that at a certain point people simply stopped talking about it.


I never said I collected for 30 years. I said I shot these rifles, as I always liked them. There was no internet back then and when your working and raising a family you don't have time to read about guns 24/7 like now. There are I'm sure many shooters today who have no idea about LN 1903's. When I bring a 1903 to the range many shooters ask if it's an M1 or a Mauser and don't even know what a 1903 is.

[Fred]

[QUOTE=swampyankee;425775][QUOTE=Griff Murphey;



There are I'm sure many shooters today who have no idea about LN 1903's. When I bring a 1903 to the range many shooters ask if it's an M1 or a Mauser and don't even know what a 1903 is.[/QUOTE]

I once met a highway patrolman who thought that all 1903 Springfield's were 1903A3's. He had never seen another type of 03. He went on and on about how wonderful the rifle was and how it was used throughout WWI. I tried to explain to him how there was another 1903 Springfield that was made using Milled steel and not stamped sheet metal for furniture. He hadn't a clue of what I was trying to describe.
Another person I know who's one of my best friends of 45 years has never seen a 1903 Springfield either. He does own a 1903A3, but he's never held a 1903. He's a Dentist in Springfield, MO now and so he cannot take a look at my rifles first hand. However I've sent him photo's of them. He's never before handled one and is unfamiliar with their sights.

[slamfire]

I am glad that what I wrote was well received. I am going to say that even since I wrote that, I have learned even more about low number receivers, and that was due to the contributions of other posters in another thread. People are such a great resource and I have learned so much from others. I am grateful that forums such as this exist where people can share knowledge and experiences. The next time I write a long missive about low number Springfields I am going to add what I learned to the narrative, but basically what I learned is that the problems of low number receivers is more than just bad forge shop workers, but rather, that Springfield Armory had a lot more problems that Hatcher omitted to mention.

[louis]

SlamFire....it's very interesting how the Marine Corps had that very simple approach for testing low number receivers. I have a couple of low number receivers without barrels. I would like to try this method and just see what happens. Would it be better to have a barrel installed first?