What to fire in a LN receiver

[tmark]

Why would anyone risk firing a rifle whose receiver will shatter just by hitting it with a ball peen hammer? If a qualified experienced gunsmith recommends not firing a lsn 03, I'd heed the warning.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I love these LN 03 discussions that crop up on a regular basis. Good thing the Marines didn't know how unsafe these rifles are, or they might have surrendered at Belleau Wood without firing a shot. Needless to say, the Corps ignored any warnings and wore out many barrels with those old receivers. Of all the WWI USMC 5th and 6th Regiment 03 serial numbers I have collected, all but two are LN rifles, generally in the 200K to 400K range. I, like the Marines, shoot my LN's without reservation or fear of destruction. I use ball ammo for the most part. When I hear of any rifle blowing up, there is usually a handload involved.

Many people might not admit to blowing up a rifle with their own handloads, but I am not one of them. I blew up a fine 257 Roberts built on a 98 Mauser action back in the 60's. It was unpleasant to say the least. My major injury was a wooden splinter stuck to the bone in my left forearm. Velocity was a big deal back in those days, and I was inching up the velocity, and simply over did it. If I remember correctly, the powder was 4895, and I was at or exceeding what was considered max loads. My shooting glasses were etched from either brass or burnt powder. I have a collection of severed case heads from everything from 22-250's on up. As Clint says, "I ain't like that anymore". I did blow a primer in a LN 03 several years ago. All I saw was a puff of smoke and the floor plate fell off.

I hunt with a LN 03. It has been in my family for many decades, and all the previous owners have gone to their just rewards. I will pass the little rifle on to someone in my family when I go. By the way, I salvaged the receiver from that 257 Roberts and rebuilt the rifle. It is my favorite hunting rifle to this day. It sports a P&S Sales light weight barrel, a Mod 70 type safety, a Weaver 4x12 scope in Buehler mounts, and a 3/8" wide Timney target trigger with external adjustment (VERY light trigger pull), with all highly polished parts. It is in a Claro Walnut stock, glass bedded receiver, free floated barrel, and refinished many times through the years, and it is currently rust blued to a beautiful iridescent blue. I dropped it in a lake one night many years ago while spot lighting beavers. It stayed in the lake for several days until I could get it out (it was very cold). There was no water in the scope. I made my best hunting shot with that rifle - an off hand shot at 474 measured yards that killed an 8-point buck instantly (Hill Country, Texas 1981).

Good luck with whatever you choose to shoot.

jt

[Rick B]

Shot this beauty long time ago before we knew of the scare and would shoot it today if I still owned it. It sold for allot of money due to its condition so I cannot shoot it anymore. It ws given away by the US Government Mottled receiver and all. Rick B

[Fred]

Neat photos!

[louis]

Very nice!!

[Rick the Librarian]

Rick, I've got your former rifle's slightly "younger brother" - #477541 - also an NRA Sales rifle. Never have and probably won't shoot it.

[Plain Old Dave]

Read the entire thread, and have a couple thoughts.

The biggest issue with LN 1903s is what happens when (not if) you have a case failure and 50K PSI gas gets about in the action. The double heat treat receivers will let go, too, but they won't grenade like LNs will. The steel is brittle in the LN receivers due to the inconsistent TLAR heat treatment; some were burned and others weren't gotten hot enough. The following link explores the problem from the vantage point of a medical doctor trained in epidemiology:

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

I concluded a while back that the US replaced a fine magazine rifle (the Krag) with one that simply had capabilities beyond present metallurgy for reasons of political expediency; Elihu Root used the "slow firing Krag" controversy to cover his revolutionary changes in the War Department. The down side is the US did not have a shoulder arm superior to the Krag until fairly late in the 1920s and the adoption of nickel steel recievers for the 1903 to solve the receiver failure issue and M1 Ball to solve the jacket fouling issue, which IMO at least contributed to receiver failures along with Mobilubricant. Both increased chamber pressure and therefore bolt thrust and stress on cartridge cases, increasing the probability of cartridge case failure and receiver failure in single and double heat treated 1903s.

Bottom line here is there are plenty of Nickel Steel receiver 1903s to shoot and no real reason to shoot a low number 1903.

[Rick the Librarian]

This may be starting a discussion which drifts away from the original purpose, but here goes:

I would disagree that the Krag was superior on several points:

1) Lack of a magazine charging system. One account I read of the S/A War said you could follow American units in action by the cartridges dropped trying to reload their rifles.

2) The Krag could not "support" a truly powerful cartridge

3) The 24' barrel of the M1903 was much more handy for the infantry and removed the need for a cavalry carbine.

4) The "thin" part of the stock around the Krag magazine was subject to constant breakage.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....The down side is the US did not have a shoulder arm superior to the Krag until fairly late in the 1920s and the adoption of nickel steel recievers for the 1903 to solve the receiver failure issue and M1 Ball to solve the jacket fouling issue, which IMO at least contributed to receiver failures along with Mobilubricant. Both increased chamber pressure and therefore bolt thrust and stress on cartridge cases, increasing the probability of cartridge case failure and receiver failure in single and double heat treated 1903s.
Bottom line here is there are plenty of Nickel Steel receiver 1903s to shoot and no real reason to shoot a low number 1903.

I find it amazing that you would shoot a Krag but not a LN 03. I consider the Krag the most dangerous (to shooter) of all milsurp rifles. The 03 proved itself in WWI beyond any reasonable doubts. Where was the Krag?

jt

[Plain Old Dave]

Firstly, in Springfield Armory's testing conducted postwar between 1893 Spanish Mausers and Krags, no significant difference was found in sustained rate of fire.

Second, the .30 Krag is a virtual ballistic clone of the .303. A record holding elk that for decades was a biggest killed in North America was killed by a rifle chambered for .30-40 in 1899, and as late as the WW1 era, Townsend Whelen recommended the 30-40 for grizzly.

Third point, maybe. This was addressed with the Board of Ordinance and Fortifications rifles just the same.

Fourth point in period reports was attributed to improperly seasoned wood, and most of the reports came from China in the Boxer Rebellion.

In 30+ years, I have never even heard of a catastrophic Krag failure. There are several pictures of just that with 03s on this thread alone.

Is the 03 a better rifle than a Krag? With a nickel steel receiver and ammo that postdates the M1 Ball change, yes. I will stay with my assertion, though. The low number 1903, especially with lower quality ammunition, is an inferior arm to the Krag.