Something Bubbas are even ashamed of.
- Thread starter Bart212
- Start date
In the pic it appears to be a six digit serial number well under the 800,000. The heat treatment of these receivers was seriously flawed. See numerous write ups on how the the standard of heat treatment was done by eye. A lot of people render them inoperable to prevent the potential 'Kabooms' that was associated with these low serial numbered Springfields & R.I.A. WWI receivers.
Has anyone ever heard or seen one blowing up beside information from the 1930's or before and word of mouth (ie internet legend)?
After looking at the pictures what is the slot in the barrel for or is that just another bubba enhancement?
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
Keep in mind that the U.S. fought World War One with LOW Numbered springfields.
And if Sgt.York's son is to be believed, he got his medal of Honor with a low number O3
Oh by the way I have seen ONE Pedersen device. Our army should be damm grateful they never were issued. Pulling the trigger every time your left foot hit the ground in an attack would have made the german machine gunnere very happy.
And if Sgt.York's son is to be believed, he got his medal of Honor with a low number O3
Oh by the way I have seen ONE Pedersen device. Our army should be damm grateful they never were issued. Pulling the trigger every time your left foot hit the ground in an attack would have made the german machine gunnere very happy.
Jack O'Connor the father of the .270 Winchester and avid gun writer was missing a finger from a low number Springfield converted to .270 Winchester that came unglued.
The faulty heat treating was a fact and these low number Springfields were discussed and covered in Hatchers Notebook starting on page 212.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3630045/hatchers-notebook
As a side note, the British military to this day still uses a oiled proof pressure cartridge when proof testing its military rifles. If the U.S. Military had used this same proof testing method these improperly heat treated low number Springfields would not have passed proof pressure testing. These oil proof rounds put twice as much bolt thrust on the bolt and receiver as a dry proof test cartridge does.
The faulty heat treating was a fact and these low number Springfields were discussed and covered in Hatchers Notebook starting on page 212.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3630045/hatchers-notebook
As a side note, the British military to this day still uses a oiled proof pressure cartridge when proof testing its military rifles. If the U.S. Military had used this same proof testing method these improperly heat treated low number Springfields would not have passed proof pressure testing. These oil proof rounds put twice as much bolt thrust on the bolt and receiver as a dry proof test cartridge does.
Last edited:
The only problem is when he won his Medal of Honor on October 8, 1918 while in the Argonne. He used the Model 1917 Enfield, that was issued to the men of his division, the 82nd...
It's just because the rifle was British designed, Even the statues have him with a 1903...
Too bad about that 1903m that crack is pretty bad and I guess no one wanted to chance it. Too bad about the bolt, barrel, etc..
There is documentation of failures by William Brophy if I remember right. It did happen but I also suspect there were other factors that led to failures as well.
You have not been the first to ask if a down loaded 30-06 is safe in these receivers. My answer is: I don't know.... After all you are talking about a receiver with a known flaw in it's heat treatment. Are they all dangerous? IMO, no. But what ones are safe & which ones are not is anyone's guess. If you decided to shoot one, you do it at your own risk. And that risk is permanent injury to death. Be Warned! I purchased a 03 receiver manufactured in 1903 & it indeed does have crack behind, where the bolt lug seats to the receiver. So yes some do crack!
The slot in the barrel of that pic looks like more handy work by bubba!!!
MapleSugar
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- On the loose from NIMH
Jack O'Connor the father of the .270 Winchester and avid gun writer was missing a finger from a low number Springfield converted to .270 Winchester that came unglued.
The faulty heat treating was a fact and these low number Springfields were discussed and covered in Hatchers Notebook starting on page 212.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3630045/hatchers-notebook
As a side note, the British military to this day still uses a oiled proof pressure cartridge when proof testing its military rifles. If the U.S. Military had used this same proof testing method these improperly heat treated low number Springfields would not have passed proof pressure testing. These oil proof rounds put twice as much bolt thrust on the bolt and receiver as a dry proof test cartridge does.
That is certainly interesting to know.
I did not realize that an excessive amount of oil in the chamber would create such a pressure spike.
I shall be more careful to remove all oil from the chamber before transitioning a rifle from storage to the firing line, from now on.
Aside from the Pederson cut, the cracked receiver, etc., someone did a hell of a butcher job on that receiver.
Not sure if I'd even trust that thing to hold paper down on my desk...
As has been pointed out, the entire problem is discussed at length in "Hatcher's Notebook". Hatcher himself was the man who tracked down the problem when the initial 2 rifles blew up and he also worked on the improved double heat-treatment for the high-numbered Springfields.
Hatcher was for about 15 years the "Director of Accidents" for the US military. Every single rifle which had a major failure in the US Army passed across his desk. There is a chapter in his 'Notebook' in which EVERY rifle accident over a 15-year period is detailed, most incidents detailed quite fully.
There can be no doubt that the problem actually existed and still does exist. Can there possibly be any other reason that the US Army specified that a MILLION rifles should not be rebuilt when it was their time, but rather cannibalised for parts and the receivers destroyed?
(Funny, but most Americans are willing to dump on the 'weak' Lee-Enfield action.... but I never heard tell of a million SMLEs being ordered destroyed because of weak receivers!)
The actual problem was steel which had been quenched from too high a temperature, giving a receiver which was much too hard, too deep into the metal. A cure of sorts was developed, but it proved difficult, finicky and unreliable. Likely this was in part due to the fact that testing would show how hard the SURFACE of a receiver might be, but it could not show what the steel was like BELOW the surface hardening... and this is where the problem lay. The original heat-treatment was erratic and actually depended upon whether the receiver was heat-treated on a sunny day or an overcast day. Because of the impossibility of determining which receivers were made on which days, it was decided to destroy them all. Nevertheless, there are thousands of low-numbered Springfields around which have chugged their way through case after case of ammunition with no problems. There were others which failed after a few dozen rounds.
One thing that is known is that each rifle did, at one point, accept a 'Blue Pill" load of about 70,000 psi (raised to 78,000 because of this problem). Also, there is no doubt but that grease or oil on the ammunition or in the chamber can make a RADICAL difference in thrust on the bolt-face and hence upon the locking-lugs.
Were I in the position of owning a low-numbered Springfield (and I am not, but this is a matter of finance and nothing else), I do not think that I could resist shooting it, had it a decent barrel. But I do rather like having my eyes in my head and I really like having my hands attached, things like that. I think I would be handloading for the thing and staying with MILD loads (under 40,000 psi) and using SLOWER powders (along the lines of 4350). I think that would increase the safety factor tremendously. The original ammunition was loaded with Pyro DG, by today's standards notoriously fast, and this powder was quick enough that the pressure, rather than rising, would JUMP. This SHOCK factor from the very-fast powder also likely had a hand in the destruction of these rifles. Substitute a PUSH for the SHOCK and it is likely that most of them would be safe enough.
But that is strictly MY take on things.
READ HATCHER. He was the man on the spot. He identified the problem. He helped to solve the problem. He investigated every single accident for 15 years. And he wrote it all down! His "Hatcher's Notebook" is the single most valuable compendium of useful knowledge to the gun-nut of any book ever written. I own two books with which I will NOT part: "Hatcher's Notebook" and "The Text Book of Small Arms -1909" TBSA tells me what things were like as designed. Hatcher tells me what goes wrong with them... and why!
Hope this helps.
Hatcher was for about 15 years the "Director of Accidents" for the US military. Every single rifle which had a major failure in the US Army passed across his desk. There is a chapter in his 'Notebook' in which EVERY rifle accident over a 15-year period is detailed, most incidents detailed quite fully.
There can be no doubt that the problem actually existed and still does exist. Can there possibly be any other reason that the US Army specified that a MILLION rifles should not be rebuilt when it was their time, but rather cannibalised for parts and the receivers destroyed?
(Funny, but most Americans are willing to dump on the 'weak' Lee-Enfield action.... but I never heard tell of a million SMLEs being ordered destroyed because of weak receivers!)
The actual problem was steel which had been quenched from too high a temperature, giving a receiver which was much too hard, too deep into the metal. A cure of sorts was developed, but it proved difficult, finicky and unreliable. Likely this was in part due to the fact that testing would show how hard the SURFACE of a receiver might be, but it could not show what the steel was like BELOW the surface hardening... and this is where the problem lay. The original heat-treatment was erratic and actually depended upon whether the receiver was heat-treated on a sunny day or an overcast day. Because of the impossibility of determining which receivers were made on which days, it was decided to destroy them all. Nevertheless, there are thousands of low-numbered Springfields around which have chugged their way through case after case of ammunition with no problems. There were others which failed after a few dozen rounds.
One thing that is known is that each rifle did, at one point, accept a 'Blue Pill" load of about 70,000 psi (raised to 78,000 because of this problem). Also, there is no doubt but that grease or oil on the ammunition or in the chamber can make a RADICAL difference in thrust on the bolt-face and hence upon the locking-lugs.
Were I in the position of owning a low-numbered Springfield (and I am not, but this is a matter of finance and nothing else), I do not think that I could resist shooting it, had it a decent barrel. But I do rather like having my eyes in my head and I really like having my hands attached, things like that. I think I would be handloading for the thing and staying with MILD loads (under 40,000 psi) and using SLOWER powders (along the lines of 4350). I think that would increase the safety factor tremendously. The original ammunition was loaded with Pyro DG, by today's standards notoriously fast, and this powder was quick enough that the pressure, rather than rising, would JUMP. This SHOCK factor from the very-fast powder also likely had a hand in the destruction of these rifles. Substitute a PUSH for the SHOCK and it is likely that most of them would be safe enough.
But that is strictly MY take on things.
READ HATCHER. He was the man on the spot. He identified the problem. He helped to solve the problem. He investigated every single accident for 15 years. And he wrote it all down! His "Hatcher's Notebook" is the single most valuable compendium of useful knowledge to the gun-nut of any book ever written. I own two books with which I will NOT part: "Hatcher's Notebook" and "The Text Book of Small Arms -1909" TBSA tells me what things were like as designed. Hatcher tells me what goes wrong with them... and why!
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
