Air Service Rifle....kinda

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

No points of disagreement here.
But I've several times previously encountered a particularly nasty piece of 'statistical analysis' purporting to show that there is really little or no risk associated with shooting the low-numbered 1903 rifles.
It is totally bogus, and apparently undertaken with no thought to the confusion it might cause to the uninformed or incautious. I have to wonder about the actual motivation of its originator.
I'll continue to call BS on the thing whenever it rears its ugly head, and see no reason not to do so whenever and whereever I get a whiff of its unmistakable aroma, whether it is named or not.
The risk is real, the facts are known, and no smoke-and-mirrors statistics changes a damned thing. mhb - Mike

Where exactly did you see any statistical analysis in my post? BS. There isn't any, and that is a plot of the data in the reports Hatcher used in his report - nothing else. What you obviously haven't discovered in your weak a$$ analysis is that Hatcher made more than a few errors, and based his work on very little actual data. If his report had been a thesis in a good engineering school, he would have had to find a whole lot more data points to support his conclusions. Since you seem to be prone to pontificate on a subject without thorough research, I'll let you find Hatcher's errors yourself.

I have made no recommendations on shooting LN 03's at all, and I won't. But I am calling BS on your bogus BS.

jt

[jgaynor]

Most of the blow ups reported in the Hatcher Data actually occurred well after the conversion to the new manufacturing process and some involved rifles that had been in service for a decade or more. The conclusion is that the decision to make the manufacturing change in the first place was based on experience with a very small number of receivers.
The one piece of data i have never seen is:
How many '03's blew up in proof firing? Hatcher just makes a veiled remark that "proof firing eliminated most of the weak ones".

It's also kind of interesting that the '03 failure rate, (burned receivers) again according to the Hatcher data, is about twice that of SA. However, when it comes to Rock Island's paperwork people have absolutely no problem accepting that the arsenal can track a production change right to a specific serial number.

Regards,
Jim

[John Beard]

I have no desire to become embroiled in the "shooting a low number" debate. But, I will rise to PhillipM's defense.

When one journeys to the National Archives and collects hundreds of pages of Ordnance documents pertaining to the heat treating problem and rifle overhaul, the conclusion he reached is inescapable.

J.B.

[mhb]

I never said you had used the term. But you saw fit to attach your little chart to your post without comment, after stating that you had conducted full research into the matter. If you are unaware of the 'statistical analysis' itself, you haven't done your research - if you subscribe to it... It does nothing to support whatever position you are attempting to defend.
In fact, your posts have been amazingly fact - free as to any basis for dismissing the Ordnance decisions on the problems they addressed and solutions they devised.
I haven't claimed to have made a personal analysis, but have stated that I fully subscribe to the description provided by MG Hatcher, and some of the reasons why I find his statements credible. You say you have carried out such research which now makes you feel safe in shooting any of your low-numbered 1903 rifles.
Then, while claiming to have read and understood Hatcher's book, you seem to have missed the point that he, himself, alone, neither collected all the data, conducted all the testing (and Ordnance did extensive testing in resolving the issue, the whole of which Hatcher only summarized), nor made the final decisions in the matter.
You apparently haven't read anything I've actually said about the topic, either, since I've offered you full opportunity to discuss any point I may have raised, quote from Hatcher, provide other source data the rest of us seem to be ignorant of - and the most you can come up with is ad-hominem diatribe.
If this is the best you can do in debate, you need to study-up.
And, if one of my soldiers or NCOs had tried your kind of tapdance on any technical matter he was supposed to know, I'd have had his ass on remedial training for a month of Sundays.

Mr. Beard and Mr. Gaynor:

If either of you feel strongly that the information MG Hatcher summarized in his book is in error, or that the work done to resolve the issue was mis-directed or incomplete, or the ultimate conclusions and recommendations they reached were erroneous, please feel free to state the contradictory evidence you may hold.

If you, Mr. Beard, feel that PhillipM's conclusion is 'inescapable', please summarize what you think that conclusion is, and what evidence supports it, if it is different from the Ordnance findings, recommendations and subsequent actions, and Hatcher's summarization thereof.

Do either of you seriously believe that Ordnance stopped rifle production at RIA, changed the heattreatment of the standard battle rifle in the middle of the largest war the world had ever known, later changed the basic material of which the action and bolt were made, and carried out extensive testing to resolve an issue which was of no real import, or that their methodology was incomplete or technically insufficient, and their conclusions and final recommendations were improper - or do you doubt that these things actually happened?

This is, and always was, a safety issue. Ordnance resolved it (properly, in my view) over 80 years ago. Yet people are still confused about an issue concerning which there should be NO confusion.

mhb - Mike

Where exactly did you see any statistical analysis in my post? BS. There isn't any, and that is a plot of the data in the reports Hatcher used in his report - nothing else. What you obviously haven't discovered in your weak a$$ analysis is that Hatcher made more than a few errors, and based his work on very little actual data. If his report had been a thesis in a good engineering school, he would have had to find a whole lot more data points to support his conclusions. Since you seem to be prone to pontificate on a subject without thorough research, I'll let you find Hatcher's errors yourself.

I have made no recommendations on shooting LN 03's at all, and I won't. But I am calling BS on your bogus BS.

jt

[jgaynor]

[snip}

Mr. Beard and Mr. Gaynor:

If either of you feel strongly that the information MG Hatcher summarized in his book is in error, or that the work done to resolve the issue was mis-directed or incomplete, or the ultimate conclusions and recommendations they reached were erroneous, please feel free to state the contradictory evidence you may hold.

If you, Mr. Beard, feel that PhillipM's conclusion is 'inescapable', please summarize what you think that conclusion is, and what evidence supports it, if it is different from the Ordnance findings, recommendations and subsequent actions, and Hatcher's summarization thereof.

Do either of you seriously believe that Ordnance stopped rifle production at RIA, changed the heattreatment of the standard battle rifle in the middle of the largest war the world had ever known, later changed the basic material of which the action and bolt were made, and carried out extensive testing to resolve an issue which was of no real import, or that their methodology was incomplete or technically insufficient, and their conclusions and final recommendations were improper - or do you doubt that these things actually happened?

This is, and always was, a safety issue. Ordnance resolved it (properly, in my view) over 80 years ago. Yet people are still confused about an issue concerning which there should be NO confusion.

mhb - Mike

Mike calm down a bit.
A few points:

1. You didn't say so but I assume the statistical analysis you are referring to is the modern report prepared by Doctor Joseph Lyons. The report contains a few technical errors regarding the manufacturing processes but the comments on the relative dangers of shooting a low number rifle are what they are. Interested parties can read the report on oldguns.net.

2. He didn't say so but presumably PM's conclusion is "why didn't both arsenals just switch to nickel steel immediately" as it was being used for P14/M1917? Good point. Switching materials would seem to be such a simple and elegant alternative if it was viable at the time one wonders why it was not done. Perhaps it just wan't an option. I won't speculate on the reasons but the ordnance guys were not stupid.

3. Lastly, and perhaps I didn't say it very well, but if you go through the detailed accident reports in Hatcher you get, in most instances, the serial number of the destroyed rifle and the arsenal which allows you to determine when and where it was made. You also get the date of the accident. The important point is that most of the accidents (out of a total of 60 or so) occurred in 1917 or later even right up into the 20's when left over WW1 ammunition was being fired at training facilities all over the country. So the decision to change the manufacturing process in WW1 was not based on a universe of 60+ in service accidents but in fact a much smaller number. UNLESS, there was also a corresponding high incidence of failures in the arsenals during proof firing.

If the internal quality control reports indicated that say one rifle in "X" was blowing up during proof firing. The add to that the reports of rifles which made it through proof and blew up in service it puts the whole matter in a different light. It would also blow the Lyons report out of the water. As I mentioned before Hatcher implies proofing was eliminating some rifles but he never tells us the rate of failure.

Ordnance could, I suppose, be criticized for hanging on to material choices and manufacturing processes left over from Krag days. After all they went from a relatively low pressure, rimmed cartridge to a rimless, high pressure design. However it must be remembered that in the days leading up to WW1 both arsenals were literally hanging on by their fingernails. ( See Crowell, "America's Munitions" 1919)

I agree that stopping production during a war was an act of substantial courage.

Regards,

Jim

[chuckindenver]

all BS asside, the OPs rifle is a nice one, and a good idea, i built one a few years ago for display at a local militaria museum, and yes, i used a SHT 1903, i knew the rifle would not be fired, and would set behind glass.

[Rick the Librarian]

First, I'd like to have a dime for each discussion on this subject I've seen over the fifteen years or so I've been interested in this subject - I'd be able to afford that Springfield M1911 I've been looking for!

I do know of a number of people who shooting low numbered M1903s and that is their right. Probably, the chance of a "problem" is relatively small. That being said, when I want to shoot a M1903, I take a high numbered one to the range. While I agree the chance of something "bad" happening is small, I choose not to take it. I had a friend have a M1903 let go on him and that is enough for me.

The Ordnance Department did basically condemn low numbered M1903 receivers, but as I said earlier, did not gather all low numbered M1903s for disposal, and allowed hundreds of thousands of them to continue in use. I do realize that they were used through World War II, but that was a "war emergency", something that is not equaled by a casual trip to the range.

[Cecil]

You know maybe I've found a home for my 03 and A3 .22 conversion kit.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I never said you had used the term. But you saw fit to attach your little chart to your post without comment, after stating that you had conducted full research into the matter. If you are unaware of the 'statistical analysis' itself, you haven't done your research - if you subscribe to it... It does nothing to support whatever position you are attempting to defend.
In fact, your posts have been amazingly fact - free as to any basis for dismissing the Ordnance decisions on the problems they addressed and solutions they devised.
I haven't claimed to have made a personal analysis, but have stated that I fully subscribe to the description provided by MG Hatcher, and some of the reasons why I find his statements credible. You say you have carried out such research which now makes you feel safe in shooting any of your low-numbered 1903 rifles.
Then, while claiming to have read and understood Hatcher's book, you seem to have missed the point that he, himself, alone, neither collected all the data, conducted all the testing (and Ordnance did extensive testing in resolving the issue, the whole of which Hatcher only summarized), nor made the final decisions in the matter.
You apparently haven't read anything I've actually said about the topic, either, since I've offered you full opportunity to discuss any point I may have raised, quote from Hatcher, provide other source data the rest of us seem to be ignorant of - and the most you can come up with is ad-hominem diatribe.
If this is the best you can do in debate, you need to study-up.
And, if one of my soldiers or NCOs had tried your kind of tapdance on any technical matter he was supposed to know, I'd have had his ass on remedial training for a month of Sundays.mhb - Mike

I was going to go through your post point by erroneous point, but I will just repeat what I said before - BS. Learn to read and comprehend what you read without adding your own perspective to what was written. For example, exactly where did I say I read Hatcher's report and understood same? Just more BS on your part. As you stated, if this is the best YOU can do in debate, YOU need to study-up.

Is that all you got, dude? Take a good look at the "little chart" and see if you spot something odd. If you can't handle it, maybe you can get one of your little soldiers to do it for you.

jt

[mhb]

Thank you for a calm and reasoned response.

1. The 'statistical analysis' I referred to is, indeed, Dr. Lyons' little work.

2. I addressed some of the likely reasons why nickel steel was not originally substituted earlier in this thread. I completely agree that the Ordnance guys weren't stupid.

3. I don't know how much attention was paid to the potential problem with the rifle's strength issues before the war, but Hatcher makes it pretty plain that the red flag went up when rifles began to fail in testing ammunition - and failing catastrophically. It is true that these failures were precipitated by really poor ammunition, but the rifles had always been intended to survive and protect the firer from just such unusual events. When they didn't, Ordnance had to take the matter more seriously - and they saw the problem as so serious and urgent that they took immediate action to correct it, during the war, and not later.

It is unfortunate that, so far as I know, no records are now available to show how many receivers and/or bolts may have failed in proof firing. However, though proof pressures were elevated considerably over service levels, proof cartridges were also manufactured with special care, and the cases were not expected to fail in firing. Nearly all the recorded failures with the 1903 are directly traceable to defective brass, or very high pressures with standard brass which caused the cartridge case to fail at the head, releasing high-pressure gas into the receiver ring with shattering effect. The 'Lyons Report' is neither a valid use of statistics in evaluating a safety issue, nor anything other than a distractor to lure the unwary: it deserves not to be blown out of the water, but flushed.

Ultimately, while the change to nickel steel resulted in a safe and satisfactory receiver and bolt, it is clear that the DHT type, made of the original low-carbon steel, was perhaps the strongest and best of the 1903 types. It was not the material which was at fault, but the processes.

And, ultimately, while it is interesting to discuss the circumstances surrounding the original determination that the low-numbered rifles are unsafe, we should never cast doubt on the fact that they are unsafe, as a class, and no one should advise that the problem is less than it is known to be, or worse, may not exist at all, unless he is prepared to disprove the known facts with hard, factual information available to all.

mhb - Mike