Low Number '03 catastrophic failure- recent.

[Parashooter]

My Krag load of 17 grains of 5744 came from the 49th Lyman manual. I should look up the data for 30-06 and just see. Now my interest has been peaked! Regardless, I've heard enough of the horror stories associated with the SHT receivers and bolts enough to not want to shoot one in my lifetime!

That's odd, your Krag is "SHT" by the same process. Maybe something other than the heat treatment is involved. Hmmm. . . .

[Art]

That's odd, your Krag is "SHT" by the same process. Maybe something other than the heat treatment is involved. Hmmm. . . .

Rimmed ammunition is much more forgiving.

Of course how the process is executed matters a lot too.....

[kragluver]

The head I f the Krag cartridge is fully enclosed by the chamber when the bolt is closed. A case head separation is not a big deal in a Krag or an Enfield. In a Mauser based action, the rear portion of the case is unsupported. A case head separation will allow high pressure gas back into the receiver. The SHT design of the Krag did indeed cause issues in a different manner - cracked bolt lugs when the Army attempted to adopt the 2200 fps cartridge. Some rifles performed just fine while others developed cracks in the front lug.

[kragluver]

The head of the Krag cartridge is fully enclosed by the chamber when the bolt is closed. A case head separation is not a big deal in a Krag or an Enfield. In a Mauser based action, the rear portion of the case is unsupported. A case head separation will allow high pressure gas back into the receiver. The SHT design of the Krag did indeed cause issues in a different manner - cracked bolt lugs when the Army attempted to adopt the 2200 fps cartridge. Some rifles performed just fine while others developed cracks in the front lug.

[bruce]

The OP in the original thread stated he purposely loaded the bullets long in the case to engage the rifling.In addition, he used excess lube on the cast bullets, which built up in the chamber.
I would think this would cause an over pressure situation that certainly didn't help. Do you guys think that would be the cause of the blow up, or just a contributor?
He insisted the once fired cases were properly annealed.

Can't speak for the load used by the SHT failure. Can say have fired a wheel barrow load or two... three of cast lead handloaded ammunition in 03 and 03-A3 rifles since 1980. Have used routine care in loading. Have not ever had a single issue. The same is true of my loads using jacketed bullets. The bullet is not problematic if it is appropriate to the rifle being used. Do doubt that merely having a well fitted Lyman #2 alloy bullet fully engraved when chambered was the direct cause of the failure. Do consider the strong possibility of a error in charging the case, either a double-charge. Once upon a time was loading .45 ACP. Had one round report louder on firing. No other problems. Case primer showed more pressure than normal. Load used was a mild mid-range target load w/ 200 gr. H&G 68 bullet. If using a low charge weight pistol powder, entirely possible to inadvertently make an error if checking after charging is not rigorous.

AFAIK, there is no one winning at any significant level of benchrest competition using anything but hand loaded ammunition. I have fired a lot of pistol matches. Lots of fellows use the 9mm b/c is it cheap. They shoot factory ammo and do fine. But, the fellows who shoot enough to be at the top are shooting hand loads... or they are factory sponsored.

All of the early receivers were less than ideal for handling gas. All of them were heat treated under less than ideal conditions compared to later techniques. The beautiful Swedish 96's are not any better than the 93's, etc. They reflect the realities of the era in which they were developed. The 03 was a derivative of the Spanish 7mm Mauser. It was designed to produce excellent feeding... thus the coned breech that so many folks opine in problematic. The later Win. M-54 and then M-70 used that exact same coned breech. Their success was due to improvements in heat treating as well as venting. The original 03 method of using a little gas vent in the right locking lug ... through the extractor... through the right receiver ring was not good. The Hatcher hole was a very good retrofit. Ideally milling the bolt ala the Mauser 98 would have been extremely helpful. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[psteinmayer]

That's odd, your Krag is "SHT" by the same process. Maybe something other than the heat treatment is involved. Hmmm. . . .

That's true Para... Didn't think about that one!

Also, I mis-quoted myself - my Krag load is actually 19 grains, which is still a hell of a lot less than 28 grains.

[butlersrangers]

Last year on this Forum, when there was considerable discussion of Hatcher, LN 1903 Springfield failures, and single heat treat / 'burnt steel' problems, '5MadFarmers' shared period metallurgy findings (War Department Document 901) that showed the steel alloy on some failed rifles was out of specifications.

(IIRC - excessive levels of Phosphorus and Sulfur in the steel alloy, which compromised the strength and elasticity of some LN receivers).

[Texraid]

I have done a considerable amount of reloading over the years and make it a point to consult several sources when working up new loads or using new to me powders and bullet combinations.

That said, something bothers me that maybe others can clarify. Accurate's online tables for 5744 and the 30-06 shows the following:
REDUCED LOADS-NO OTHER LOADS RECOMMENDED
200 grain Lyman #31129. 22 gr

210 gr bullet is not listed, but that being the case, shouldn't it be a loading of 18-20 gr?

How do you reconcile the difference in Accurate's factory website and Lyman's 49th? Seeing the loads others have posted it would seem Lyman is wrong.

Any ideas?

[BrentD]

Texraid, I too now question the Lyman data. Here is the relevant page of that manual. Note the differences in max load pressures among the various powders listed for this bullet, but more importantly, look at the differences in minimum loads for this powder using this bullet in comparison to the same powder and the minimum loading for the 311299 bullet (upper right table).

[psteinmayer]

Looks like something very fishy in that data! Why would a 195 gr bullet start at 23 grains, a 200 gr bullet start at 21 grains... and then a 210 gr bullet jump to a whopping 28 grains?