FYI to all: 800,000 was an arbitrary number selected as the cutoff for "low number/high number" Springfield receivers. The actual number is unknown. 800,000 was selected because the change was "around" that number. There is at least one significant recent (ca. 1972) case reported of a Springfield reciver letting go in the 811,000 range that revealed itself, upon advanced lab testing results, to be a single heat treated receiver.
Early 03 receiver question
- Thread starter sp45
- Start date
Double heat treat receivers were made from the same crappy low carbon plain steels. Process controls were tightened up, the heat treatment time doubled, but a double heat treat does not make plain carbon steel unbreakable.
Plain carbon steels are erratic in their reaction to heat treatment. Identical billets will harden all the way through, some will surface harden.
Someone on Culver's is keeping a database of known blown Double heat treat receivers, I think he was up to 29.
Today, no one in their right mind would ever make receivers from plain low carbon steels. You would use an alloy steel for such a safety critical and complicated part. Springfield Armory kept on using Class C steel, and I believe it was because they were ultra conservative and resistant to change in WWI. It took the Rock Island closure, SA using RIA nickel steel stocks and heat treating RIA receivers for 10 years, and the death of the SA chief metallurgist (I guess) for SA to abandon carbon steel receivers in the late 20's.
Sometimes human mortality is the only path forward to progress
Thanks all. I also have Hatchers Notebook and have researched the history of failures. I beleive that they early guns are safe with military spec. ammo. I have also seen an early serial number that the receiver came apart and the shooter lost his eye. He was shooting cast bullets with fast burning reduced loads. The person who was with the shooter beleives that he double charged the case. In any case I have no intention of shooting llthis gun I am taking it apart for parts. The barrel is 1929 dated. With the number of collectors looking for early correct parts I just thought a first year receiver might be worth something. Also thanks for the leads to the other sites.
Lots of guns blew up during WWI. This included 75mm and 155mm guns. US made artillery shells were well known for detonating in the gun tube. Because of ammunition quality control issues; the US Army started the first career civil service professional school: Quality Assurance Specialist Ammunition Surveillance.
The US Army bought some very sorry .30 caliber ammunition during WWI. Some of this ammo was responsible for the destruction of 1903 Springfield rifles and 1917 Enfield rifles. Somewhere in my small arms collection are several rounds made by National Copper and Brass: This stuff is defective due to soft cartridge cases. This company had not made ammo prior to WWI.
This is a pretty good paper on Springfield rifle failures:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
The US Army bought some very sorry .30 caliber ammunition during WWI. Some of this ammo was responsible for the destruction of 1903 Springfield rifles and 1917 Enfield rifles. Somewhere in my small arms collection are several rounds made by National Copper and Brass: This stuff is defective due to soft cartridge cases. This company had not made ammo prior to WWI.
This is a pretty good paper on Springfield rifle failures:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Gunplummer
New member
Plain low carbon steels?
I still don't see anything here to say how the guns were heat treated, and I'm not going to spend the money to buy a Hatcher's book. Apparently it didn't have anything technical in it or someone could tell me the chemical analysis of the steel used and a quick rundown of the process to heat treat. I have never dealt with a WW1 or WW2 Mauser that did not have a low carbon steel receiver.Period. I would venture to say, due to hardness depth, reaction to welding, reheating sections of them, that they are not above 1018 or 1020. I would say there is a hell of a lot more 30.06 Mausers in the deer woods than there is 30.06 Springfields. I am not the only guy to ask, go talk to the older Smiths in your area, they dealt with a lot more of this stuff 30-40 years ago. Put it on the wall where it belongs.
I still don't see anything here to say how the guns were heat treated, and I'm not going to spend the money to buy a Hatcher's book. Apparently it didn't have anything technical in it or someone could tell me the chemical analysis of the steel used and a quick rundown of the process to heat treat. I have never dealt with a WW1 or WW2 Mauser that did not have a low carbon steel receiver.Period. I would venture to say, due to hardness depth, reaction to welding, reheating sections of them, that they are not above 1018 or 1020. I would say there is a hell of a lot more 30.06 Mausers in the deer woods than there is 30.06 Springfields. I am not the only guy to ask, go talk to the older Smiths in your area, they dealt with a lot more of this stuff 30-40 years ago. Put it on the wall where it belongs.
It takes too long to play with the stupid formatting on this page so I am quitting. But here is a list of some of the material and heat treatment information on these 03 receivers.
Code:
From July-Aug 1928 issue Army Ordnance, “Heat Treatment and Finish of Small Arms at Springfield Armory”
Carbon Manganese Max Phos Max Sulpher Nickel Component Use
Manganese Steel WD1325 .20-.30 1.0-1.30 .050 .050 Receivers And Bolts
Nickel Steel W.D. 2340 .35-.45 .50-.80 .04 .050 3.25-3.75 Receivers And Bolts
Manganese Steel W.D. 1350 .45-.55 1.00-1.30 .050 .050 Barrels
From Instructions to Bidders, and Specifications Governing the Manufacture and Inspection of the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903 1 July 1916
The physical qualities required in the annealed (not heat treated!) state are as follows:
Tensile Strength
Lbs per square inch Elastic limit
lbs per square inch Elongation
Per cent Contraction of area
Per cent Component
Use
Class A
(later called
WD 1350) 110,000 75,000 20 45 Barrels
Class C
(later called
WD 1325) 75,000 50,000 25 50 Receivers
And Bolts
From Book “Manufacture of the Model 1903 Springfield Service Rifle, Wolfe Publishing Co. Inc, 1984
Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 1 to 800,000*
Material, Class C Steel
Treatment: Carburize in bone at 1500 F for 4 hours, then quench in oil
Source: Hatcher’s Notebook, Stackpole Books.
Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 800,000 to 1,275,767
Material, Class C steel
Treatment: Carburize in bone at 1450 F for 2.5 hours, then quench in oil
Reheat at 1300 F in a salt bath for 5 minutes and quench in oil
Draw at 350 F in an oil bath, and air cool.
Hardness Rockwell C33 to C44
Source: July-Aug 1928 issue Army Ordnance, “Heat Treatment and Finish of Small Arms at Springfield Armory
Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 1,275,767
Material WD 2340
Treatment: Heat to 1425-1450 for five minutes in a salt bath, oil quench
Temper at 700 F for one-half hour and air cool
Hardness Rockwell C-40 to C-50.
Source: July-Aug 1928 issue Army Ordnance, “Heat Treatment and Finish of Small Arms at Springfield Armory
Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 1,275,767
Material WD 2340
Treatment: Heat to 1425-1450 for five minutes in a salt bath, oil quench
Temper at 700 F for one-half hour and air cool
Hardness Rockwell C-40 toJim Watson
New member
That sub 1600 number action may have been made with extreme care with right on heat treatment as production started up. Or it might be one of the errors in a trial and error startup process. I would not bet the price of a rifle and the risk of a kaBoom on it.
I remember reading that Dave LeGate, art director at Wolff publications, had a nice Springfield collection and sacrificed low number several actions. Enough broke when hit with a hammer or dropped on a concrete floor to really make you think twice about shooting one. Sure, they might go forever with a standard load of 4895 in good brass that did not apply sudden impact, but they will not handle a split case or blown casehead at all well.
Sorry, Gunplummer, but my copy of Hatcher likely went up in my house fire; or I would copy out the heat treatment process of the day, right down to the bone charcoal pack casehardening that was part of the manufacture in those days. Low number '03s were heat treated the same way as the Krag. The problems arising from the fact that the '03 operated at 25% higher chamber pressure with less casehead support, stronger Mauser style lockup notwithstanding.
I remember reading that Dave LeGate, art director at Wolff publications, had a nice Springfield collection and sacrificed low number several actions. Enough broke when hit with a hammer or dropped on a concrete floor to really make you think twice about shooting one. Sure, they might go forever with a standard load of 4895 in good brass that did not apply sudden impact, but they will not handle a split case or blown casehead at all well.
Sorry, Gunplummer, but my copy of Hatcher likely went up in my house fire; or I would copy out the heat treatment process of the day, right down to the bone charcoal pack casehardening that was part of the manufacture in those days. Low number '03s were heat treated the same way as the Krag. The problems arising from the fact that the '03 operated at 25% higher chamber pressure with less casehead support, stronger Mauser style lockup notwithstanding.
Gunplummer
New member
Finally ...
The second number of the 1325 is the carbon content. If you say it was charcoal pack hardening process it, it had to be case hardened. I did color case years back and it was almost the same process. It had to be low carbon material to use this process because of the quenching media involved. 1325 is about right for understructure. It is crucial to obtain a certain heat range, it varies the degree of hardness. I don't remember getting anything too hard, but had things to soft. I believe that was either a bad batch of packing material I mixed, or I didn't let it soak long enough. Anyway, apparently it was the process of heat treating that was the problem not the steel used. You add carbon when you case harden and there is not enough in the steel listed to give you trouble. When they stole the design from Mauser, they should have kidnapped the heattreater also. Thanks for the information Mr. Watson.
The second number of the 1325 is the carbon content. If you say it was charcoal pack hardening process it, it had to be case hardened. I did color case years back and it was almost the same process. It had to be low carbon material to use this process because of the quenching media involved. 1325 is about right for understructure. It is crucial to obtain a certain heat range, it varies the degree of hardness. I don't remember getting anything too hard, but had things to soft. I believe that was either a bad batch of packing material I mixed, or I didn't let it soak long enough. Anyway, apparently it was the process of heat treating that was the problem not the steel used. You add carbon when you case harden and there is not enough in the steel listed to give you trouble. When they stole the design from Mauser, they should have kidnapped the heattreater also. Thanks for the information Mr. Watson.
Jim Watson
New member
The Legend According to Hatcher was that they had experienced workers who thought they could judge the temperature of glowing steel by eye. It turned out that ambient light would affect the very best man's estimate by 300 degrees. The bad receivers were overhardened, "burnt" in the terminology of 1918. "Double heat treatment" of the same steel with pyrometers produced good stout actions. I wish I still had my book to quote in detail.
I am also of the opinion that we might have been better off to have just paid Mauser for a full license and issued 1898s in .30 x 2 1/4" (7.62x57 to fit the standard Mauser magazine with the established American bullet.)
Nobody else bothered with cocking knobs and magazine cutoffs by then, anyhow. The target shooters could still have had their ladder sights.
I am also of the opinion that we might have been better off to have just paid Mauser for a full license and issued 1898s in .30 x 2 1/4" (7.62x57 to fit the standard Mauser magazine with the established American bullet.)
Nobody else bothered with cocking knobs and magazine cutoffs by then, anyhow. The target shooters could still have had their ladder sights.
.
Not during heat treat. During forging. The receivers were overheated during forging. Burnt steel cannot be heat treated to good steel. Along with the double heat treat process they must have installed better forging temperature controls.
If you scroll down in the window, the final heat treat was in a salt bath.
Also the nickle steel receivers were "single heat treated".
Gunplummer
New member
I did miss that bottom info, I am new to computers. That really changes things. They were not trying to case harden the early receivers. They wanted to carberize it completely. Note the lack of carburization on the later receivers, and the carbon content of the steel used. It appears that no matter what this guy Hatcher said, they just didn't know how to match their heat treating skills to what they wanted heat treated. I believe the heat treater became the scapegoat for poor design and construction requirements. Bottom line: hang them on the wall, buy a 98 Mauser. Better yet, buy an Arisaka.
Looking at a whole bunch of different actions and this popped up
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=161336343
The auction is for a Springfield receiver in the 240k range: "It has NOT been modified by adding a "Hatcher Hole"."
What does that mean?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=161336343
The auction is for a Springfield receiver in the 240k range: "It has NOT been modified by adding a "Hatcher Hole"."
What does that mean?
The whole theme of Hatcher's discourse is “those darned civilians”. It was those darned civilians mucking up our great rifle.
The military was in charge and they were passing the buck. Obviously the process flow, process oversight and process controls were inadequate. It had been inadequate for a very long time, since the beginning of production. And guess what, the military were incharge of everything but it turns out to be the civilians fault.
Kind of like blaming assembly line workers for poor sales of GM autos.
In Hatcher's Notebook, notice the buck passing game between Springfield Armory and the cartridge manufacturer. Obviously defective cartridges were letting go, causing brittle receivers to frag, but SA was pushing back, deigning they had a problem.
This event occurred early in Hatcher’s career, when he was a junior Officer. Junior people get to be involved in a hands on way and that is interesting. That does not mean there were not other production problems at SA, it was just that this one made it into print.
MG Hatcher ran the Ordnance Department during WWII, but the experiences of a top level manager just are not as interesting to write about. Even though they have more dollar value.
The Hatcher Hole is a gas vent drilled on the left side of the receiver. It was a band aid fix to provide for better gas venting on a design that never considered shooter protection from blown case heads or pierced primers.
Hatcher and Crossman totally ignored the design faults of the 03 because to acknowledge them would assign fault to the Army.
Rule #2: Minimize Scandal.
added info
As an addendum: I didn't notice any reference to William Brophy's history of the 1903s.
He has a detailed description of the heat treat process in the section "Ordnance and the Model 1903".
Also - probably of no account in the general caution against use - there is a record in "Ordnance Potpurri", p.605 that receivers made between 1/1/ 1917 and 11/25/1919[sic] SA #632800 - 800,000 "must be scrapped". (800,000 was made Feb. 18,1918)'
I have a feeling that the 1918 date was left out and that the 1919 date is the date that the advisory was issued. I found it interesting that the production range for scrapping was far more limited than the advisory issued in 1929.
Pete
"The Springfield 1903 Rifles", William S. Brophy, Stackpole Books, 1985.
As an addendum: I didn't notice any reference to William Brophy's history of the 1903s.
He has a detailed description of the heat treat process in the section "Ordnance and the Model 1903".
Also - probably of no account in the general caution against use - there is a record in "Ordnance Potpurri", p.605 that receivers made between 1/1/ 1917 and 11/25/1919[sic] SA #632800 - 800,000 "must be scrapped". (800,000 was made Feb. 18,1918)'
I have a feeling that the 1918 date was left out and that the 1919 date is the date that the advisory was issued. I found it interesting that the production range for scrapping was far more limited than the advisory issued in 1929.
Pete
"The Springfield 1903 Rifles", William S. Brophy, Stackpole Books, 1985.
Because of the cone shaped breech of the 1903 Springfiled rifle, the rear of the cartridge case is unsupported for more than 1/8 inch. The 1917 Enfield, the Winchester model 54 and the pre-64 model 70 Winchester are also made this way. You don't want to have a case head separation when firing one of these guns.
I was present on a firing range when a man two benches away had a case head separate in his very nice Pre-64 Winchester model 70. The receiver was cracked, the floor plate blown out and the stock was splintered. Luckily the man was not seriously injured.
I was present on a firing range when a man two benches away had a case head separate in his very nice Pre-64 Winchester model 70. The receiver was cracked, the floor plate blown out and the stock was splintered. Luckily the man was not seriously injured.
Interesting article written by Hugh Douglas "About low number Springfields". From May-June 1985 Rifle Magazine.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/LNSpringfieldLowRes.pdf
http://www.fulton-armory.com/LNSpringfieldLowRes.pdf
My math could be flawed for one and I have not seen everything. but I measure case head thickness, on military brass I have never measured a case that had a case head thickness less than .200, if what Hatcher says is true the case may have .0147 unsupported case, it also has .053 thousands case head support. I measure case head protrusion, I have never found a Springfield or Rock Island or Enfield (E, R or W) with more than .090 thousands protrusion from the bottom of the extractor cut, and if case protrusion is a concern, shoot commercial brass, R-P 30/06 case head thickness is .260+, meaning if there is a Springfield with .145 case head protrusion (or unsupported case) when R-P brass is used the case head will have .105 case head support.
And the Mauser? unsupported case head or protrusion is .110 plus or - very few.
F. Guffey
And the Mauser? unsupported case head or protrusion is .110 plus or - very few.
F. Guffey