Low Number '03 catastrophic failure- recent.

[psteinmayer]

Lyman's 49th lists 28 grains of 5744 as a starting load for a 210 grain cast bullet. However, that is most likely for modern rifles or high numbered 03s and 03A3s. I imagine that it's pretty stout for a SHT rifle, especially when you factor in excess lube, high starting pressures, etc. I believe all of this adds up to a disaster in the making!

[Art]

1. Just about every modern blow up of any milsurp rifle I've heard of has been with hand loaded ammunition.

2. The problem with low number rifles isn't that they can fail, it's how they fail when they do. The OP is a classic low number failure. I once had an M1 carbine blow up on me after a fellow had asked me to shoot it. I believe it was a combination of a handload and bad headspace on that particular rifle. I did not get a scratch though shooting glasses may have saved my eyes. Of course it was not a low number '03.

3. A low number '03 may never fail but if they do fail due to a case head separation this is what you can expect. A DHT or nickle steel receiver is going to break but not shatter. That's just a fact proven in testing.

4. On pistol powder, some of the low number '03 failures occurred with "Guard Cartridges" loaded with pistol powder.

I don't understand the almost religious obsession with the idea that a low number '03 is as safe as a high number '03 despite all the evidence to the contrary. Most '03 SHT rifles are probably safe but if anyone insists on shooting them and there's a catastrophic failure due to a case head separation....well no sniveling. This is especially true if the failure occurred with a hand load.... any hand load. The correct ammo is USGI ball or the FACTORY equivalent. Anything else, IMHO, increases your risk.

[Alkali]

This is a heart breaking bit of news for all of us. I have owned a nice low number for over 30 years and shudder to think of the emotional (and physical) loss if this happened to me. I'm sure the owner feels this way as well as the other collectors who posted. My condolences to him.

[StockDoc]

1. Just about every modern blow up of any milsurp rifle I've heard of has been with hand loaded ammunition.

2. The problem with low number rifles isn't that they can fail, it's how they fail when they do. The OP is a classic low number failure. I once had an M1 carbine blow up on me after a fellow had asked me to shoot it. I believe it was a combination of a handload and bad headspace on that particular rifle. I did not get a scratch though shooting glasses may have saved my eyes. Of course it was not a low number '03.

3. A low number '03 may never fail but if they do fail due to a case head separation this is what you can expect. A DHT or nickle steel receiver is going to break but not shatter. That's just a fact proven in testing.

4. On pistol powder, some of the low number '03 failures occurred with "Guard Cartridges" loaded with pistol powder.

I don't understand the almost religious obsession with the idea that a low number '03 is as safe as a high number '03 despite all the evidence to the contrary. Most '03 SHT rifles are probably safe but if anyone insists on shooting them and there's a catastrophic failure due to a case head separation....well no sniveling. This is especially true if the failure occurred with a hand load.... any hand load. The correct ammo is USGI ball or the FACTORY equivalent. Anything else, IMHO, increases your risk.

^this^

I don't know why, but it seems that every generation has to relearn what the generations before it already knew.

[BrentD]

From what few I have seen, they load some light load with pistol powder to take it easy on the old action.

My theory is they double charged their light load, blow the gun up, then refuse to admit their load could have been the fault.

I love the way people jump to the conclusions. Some things are even more predictable that an 03 blowing up...

[BrentD]

From what few I have seen, they load some light load with pistol powder to take it easy on the old action.

My theory is they double charged their light load, blow the gun up, then refuse to admit their load could have been the fault.

That is a hypothesis, hardly a theory. The difference being immense.

You really should read the OP first you know. The first part of your hypothesis is easily disproved. The second part is just wrong

[IditarodJoe]

Actually Einstein, Phillip's use of the word "theory" is perfectly acceptable in this context (the word "hypothesis" would be equally valid). As for the rest of your post, sheesh! You're the one who blew up a nice collectable rifle, and now you come running to a gun forum you haven't even posted to in the past looking for . . . what? Vindication? Notoriety? Sympathy? Hey, you screwed up - deal with it.

(Sorry guys, but people like this really frost my butt.)

[PhillipM]

That is a hypothesis, hardly a theory. The difference being immense.

You really should read the OP first you know. The first part of your hypothesis is easily disproved. The second part is just wrong

hypothesis, theory, theorem, supposition, whatever. High school semantics were a long time ago.

My all of the above is that low number 03 blow ups have all been from handloads, bore obstruction, or other ammunition problems.

My theorem, which you are encouraged to disprove, is that no one can find a low number 03 blown up by good surplus or commercial ammunition. I say good surplus because M split case heads like on some lots of Korean, for example will wreck any rifle and blow a ln 03 to bits.

There are thousands of low number sporter 03's out there that hit the hunting fields every year with owners that don't know the ln/hn problem, but they shoot just fine.

I have shot my 1904 production rifle just for grins, but it lives in the safe, my high numbers shoot the same.

[BrentD]

hypothesis, theory, theorem, supposition, whatever. High school semantics were a long time ago.

'tis no wonder we have such problems these days on social media and elsewhere. If you don't know the differences, what I can I say? English used to be a well understood language, but no longer, and apparently your high school, like most others, has a well watered down curriculum.

As far as I have been able to find, commercial ammo has pressures running in the low to upper 40K PSI range, with some way into the 50s. However, no manufacturer actually has the balls to put their pressures on their boxes (at least not Remington, Winchester and a few others I looked at today). Now stuffing some 45-55K PSI commercial ammo of unknown pressure into that rifle would have been really stupid.

The load I used books at 30,300 PSI. Well below any estimates I can find for commercial ammo. It was also the listed beginning load for that bullet and powder combination. I don't think it was entirely foolish to try it, given that one is going to shoot a low number 03. Yet clearly even that was too much last Saturday.

I made the original post on the forum that I did because intelligent people who own, collect, and use 03s hang out there. What they choose to do in the future is up to each of them, but now they have just a little more information.

[pickax]

BrentD
You have certainly started out on the wrong foot here. This forum has one of the best knowledgeable military rifle membership base. Especially on the 1903.
Michael Petrov was a valued member and friend to many here, as you may note in the sticky on the main page. The snippet of comments you took out of context weren't aimed at you, but had been shown to be a cause in previous blown receivers. The subject has been documented well by both Brophy and Hatcher in their respective books.
If you want an intelligent discussion here, good manners are required, the same manners you displayed in your original thread on the other forum.
I think I know what happened, and noted it earlier in this thread, but am not an expert reloader. Below is the quote that made me think you had a catastrophic pressure spike.

#446249 - 06/07/16 07:34 AM Re: High vs. Low [Re: BrentD]
BrentD Offline
Sidelock
**

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 2376
Loc: Iowa
I think I can rule out the headspace problem as I understand it.

First, the brass was Winchester brass that had been previously fire one time only, and the same rifle. Thus, it was well fire formed to the chamber. It had been annealed before the first and and second loads in my annealing machine. I have great faith that it was neither over or under annealed.

More importantly, I was using a lead bullet (approximately Lyman #2 alloy for hardness), which I had loaded a bit longer than MOA so that they were forced into the rifling. This made the bolt hard to close because the lead was lightly engraved on the first band and nose and the bullets, being tumble lubed, had to negotiate that sticky nose into the rifling. There is no chance that the brass was anywhere but against the bolt face when the primer stuck.

Because the bullet was well engaged in the throat, there is also very little chance, in my mind, that the firing pin could have moved the case forward before detonating the primer. If this was happening, the primer strikes on the prior rounds would be quite light, but they are not.

Perhaps engaging the rifling with the bullet increased the pressures substantially. I have my doubts about this since breech seating procedures that do the same thing to a greater degree are widely practiced in the Schuetzen world where I sometimes hang out.

So, in sum, I think we can rule out headspace as the cause.

I will measure across the threads of the barrel and see what I find.

The remains of the blown round are still in the chamber so trying to fit a piece of brass in there is not possible. I have not tried to extract the brass. BTW, all the previously fired rounds had extracted normally with ease.

I am on the fence about these SEE events. Maybe, maybe not, but several folks have independently informed me about 5744 being a bit "tricky" in that it seems to have produced other unusual and rare events that might be signs of high pressure issues in seemingly normal loads."

Glad you survived to discuss this.