Single Heat Treated M1903 Bolts

[Merc]

There is still a demand for early bolts to be use in early rifles where the original bolt was replaced
and in restorations of early rifles, Vi Shooters data provides all the information for proper identification

That’s good to hear since I’ll be trying to sell a nice one. I’ll never need it b/c I’ll never own an early ‘03.

Unfortunately, the CMP hasn’t changed the wording in the article on their web site to reflect the Ordnance Dept. documentation.

Metallurgy came a long way quickly in those days. The makers of the M1917 learned from Springfield’s mistakes and built the beast that the doughboys carried in WW1.

http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/

[gator43]

I have what I believe to be an unmolested RIA rifle, SN 282970, which I believe to be one of the guns Mr Beard and Ferris identified as having been in storage and unassembled in January 1918 when manufacturing ceased for installation of improved heat treating equipment, and then treated with the new furnaces, and assembled for service issue. OHA inspected. The straight-handle bolt is stamped R10, which I believe is double heat treated and/ or nickel steel. Is that correct?

[John Beard]

I have what I believe to be an unmolested RIA rifle, SN 282970, which I believe to be one of the guns Mr Beard and Ferris identified as having been in storage and unassembled in January 1918 when manufacturing ceased for installation of improved heat treating equipment, and then treated with the new furnaces, and assembled for service issue. OHA inspected. The straight-handle bolt is stamped R10, which I believe is double heat treated and/ or nickel steel. Is that correct?

That is correct.

J.B.

[Johnny P]

"Single Heat Treated" is about the receivers, not the bolts. There's no mention of soft or brittle bolts in General Hatcher's Notebook. There's an entire chapter about the receiver issue though.

General Hatcher does mention early bolts with cracked lugs and also of losing their locking lugs, but in every case the safety lug prevented the bolt from coming out.

[gator43]

That is correct.

J.B.

Thanks

[Merc]

I saw a rather interesting Remington 03A3 today at the largest and best known antique shop in Gettysburg, PA. It appears that the chamber failed to contain a fired round. There was a portion of the receiver that was missing, the front end of the bolt was damaged and the stock was damaged near the receiver. It was still for sale. The price? $450.

The circumstances surrounding the failure of a rifle from the early 1940s are unknown and the fact that the rifle is still for sale is astounding. It’s particularly troubling to see that a failure occurred to a rifle that’s generally considered safe to shoot. We trust our old rifles will stay together when we take them to the range, but should we?

[John Beard]

I feel confident that the failure was provoked by an obstructed or partially obstructed bore. Or perhaps by a faulty reload.

J.B.

[Merc]

I feel confident that the failure was provoked by an obstructed or partially obstructed bore. Or perhaps by a faulty reload.

J.B.

Excellent point. Maybe the rifle is to be admired for largely containing the explosion. It has all the characteristics of a barrel obstruction. I wonder how many bullets we’d find lodged in the barrel. The bolt shifted back some and was jammed and the receiver mostly stayed together except for one small area on the side near the stock that was missing. I couldn’t see anything on this rifle that was salvageable except for the external hardware and possibly the stock.

[Merc]

The 03A3 stock on my Greek returned M1903 that I bought back in July has a hardwood patch that’s cut in the shape of an inverted wedge and pinned with small dowel pins. It’s located in the same spot near the receiver where the other stock was damaged by the ruptured receiver.

29AC76D7-9A29-4672-A409-4E4C3EB8F6C2.jpg

Another possible barrel obstruction?