Originally Posted by
pickax
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.
" Unlike most conservatives, libs have no problem exploiting dead children and dancing on their graves."