Early 03 receiver question
- Thread starter sp45
- Start date
The double heat treating process takes advantage of the fact high carbon steel reaches the austenitic temperature needed for a hardening response to quenching at a lower temperature than lower carbon steel does. So, a carborized steel skin can be reheated to a lower temperature than is needed to quench harden its lower carbon base steel underneath, then quenched to harden the skin without hardening the base. Those are the two heat treatments (carborizing, then lower temperature heating and quenching to harden the skin) that make it "double" heat treating. It leaves the core malleable and the skin hard, which then bends rather than shatters.
The serial numbers are complicated. Rock Island switched to nickel steel at something just over SN 250,000 I think? Springfield switched to double heat treatment for awhile, then followed Rock Islands example going to nickel steel to avoid the complicated heat treating process at somewhere around 1,250,000? The double heat treating of the old steel started somewhere around 800,000, but where Rock Island apparently kept good records, Springfield had some deadspots in theirs and then also committed the error of having kept some of the old receivers aside that later got mixed in with double heat treated receivers, and that raised the serial number you need on a Springfield to something about 800,000. I've forgotten the number? It was less than 900,000, IIRC, but the uncertainty seems to be why people talk about avoiding numbers below 1,000,000. Since the serial number would have to be stamped before the steel was hardened, probably these received double heat treating, too, but the steel underneath was already "burnt" at forging.
The serial numbers are complicated. Rock Island switched to nickel steel at something just over SN 250,000 I think? Springfield switched to double heat treatment for awhile, then followed Rock Islands example going to nickel steel to avoid the complicated heat treating process at somewhere around 1,250,000? The double heat treating of the old steel started somewhere around 800,000, but where Rock Island apparently kept good records, Springfield had some deadspots in theirs and then also committed the error of having kept some of the old receivers aside that later got mixed in with double heat treated receivers, and that raised the serial number you need on a Springfield to something about 800,000. I've forgotten the number? It was less than 900,000, IIRC, but the uncertainty seems to be why people talk about avoiding numbers below 1,000,000. Since the serial number would have to be stamped before the steel was hardened, probably these received double heat treating, too, but the steel underneath was already "burnt" at forging.
Slam Fire, in the last year I have had 5 M1917s apart or going together, normally it is a receiver from here and a barrel from there, I received a barrel from Brian Ballard complete with sweat and fingerprints from the 3 smith that removed it, and the receiver survived, it was an Eddystone, protrusion was .090 thousands, had I used a head space gage the protrusion would have been .095. Bryan needed a 1894 Krag barrel, a year later he sent me the M1917 barrel. I purchased what was advertised as a good deal at the Big Town Gun show in Mesquite, TX, no need to magnaflux, the crack was visible (in the light) the barrel was good with .090 protrusion. I purchased 2 take off barrels from Lee's gun shop in Irving, TX, both had .090 thousands protrusion, one became a 308 Norma Mag.
Receivers waiting for barrels that had barrels rusted and or shot out, again within a few thousands, the protrusion was .090, every time I hear about excessive case head protrusion the reference is always associated with Hatcher and a quote from his book, Hatcher could have made gages that would measured case head protrusion on any rifle with a 30/06 case head, the gage could have measured from the bolt face to the face of the cone with a short guide for chambering, he could have made it adjustable with shims or stackers or he had could have made it in the form of a screw together 2 piece gage, then there is another way, it did not happen. As I have said, the chamber gets dark when the bolt closes.
The P14s that were rebuilt by the British had changes made to the flat barrel face that facilitated gas escape to the right side of the receiver to the 'Hatcher hole' drilled through the receiver and extractor (the two holes aligned). The 303 British head spaced on the rim (as you know), E, W and R had the British looking over their shoulder when the P14 was built, meaning builders of the P14 knew how critical case protrusion was, the help the British gave E, W, and R a lesson that was not lost when the M1917 was built.
There is no shortage of 03 take off barrels, most are not serviceable because of bore condition, for the most part this does not change case head protrusion, again .090 within a few thousands it the norm, again I have never found the .147 protrusion of the case from the chamber in an 03 or M1917.
It is never mentioned therefore I assume it is not done when setting a barrel up for head space, measuring from the case head down to the shoulder at the end of the threads on the barrel shank will determine the effect the barrel chamber has on head space, why the protrusion is not measured at this time escapes me. I do not covet Hatcher, if what he wrote is accurate he should have included a technique and or method for determining the measurement.
I do not believe there is an excuse for Springfield building 800,000 + rifles only to find there was/is a problem with some or all of them and if there was a problem with a series/lot, which series/lot, Hatcher could have been pointing to case head protrusion when he should have been pointing at Springfield, again Winchester/Browning did not release the Model 94 until 1895 because the rifle was not holding up to smokeless powder, Browning found/discovered nickel, most likely at the patent office, the rest is history, he added nickel to the barrel and the rifle became the 1894 released in 1895. 28 years later Springfield discovered the patent office? W, E and R used nickel in the P14. The Eddystone is still anyone guess.
F. Guffey
Receivers waiting for barrels that had barrels rusted and or shot out, again within a few thousands, the protrusion was .090, every time I hear about excessive case head protrusion the reference is always associated with Hatcher and a quote from his book, Hatcher could have made gages that would measured case head protrusion on any rifle with a 30/06 case head, the gage could have measured from the bolt face to the face of the cone with a short guide for chambering, he could have made it adjustable with shims or stackers or he had could have made it in the form of a screw together 2 piece gage, then there is another way, it did not happen. As I have said, the chamber gets dark when the bolt closes.
The P14s that were rebuilt by the British had changes made to the flat barrel face that facilitated gas escape to the right side of the receiver to the 'Hatcher hole' drilled through the receiver and extractor (the two holes aligned). The 303 British head spaced on the rim (as you know), E, W and R had the British looking over their shoulder when the P14 was built, meaning builders of the P14 knew how critical case protrusion was, the help the British gave E, W, and R a lesson that was not lost when the M1917 was built.
There is no shortage of 03 take off barrels, most are not serviceable because of bore condition, for the most part this does not change case head protrusion, again .090 within a few thousands it the norm, again I have never found the .147 protrusion of the case from the chamber in an 03 or M1917.
It is never mentioned therefore I assume it is not done when setting a barrel up for head space, measuring from the case head down to the shoulder at the end of the threads on the barrel shank will determine the effect the barrel chamber has on head space, why the protrusion is not measured at this time escapes me. I do not covet Hatcher, if what he wrote is accurate he should have included a technique and or method for determining the measurement.
I do not believe there is an excuse for Springfield building 800,000 + rifles only to find there was/is a problem with some or all of them and if there was a problem with a series/lot, which series/lot, Hatcher could have been pointing to case head protrusion when he should have been pointing at Springfield, again Winchester/Browning did not release the Model 94 until 1895 because the rifle was not holding up to smokeless powder, Browning found/discovered nickel, most likely at the patent office, the rest is history, he added nickel to the barrel and the rifle became the 1894 released in 1895. 28 years later Springfield discovered the patent office? W, E and R used nickel in the P14. The Eddystone is still anyone guess.
F. Guffey
'treatment process of the day, right down to the bone 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"
No way to compare the 03 with the Mauser, with one exception, the CAR98 was a small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel meaning it was the same diameter as the small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel, the receiver ring was thinner, odly enough and a coiencedence? the 03 receiver is the same diameter as the small ring Mauser with a shank that is larger than the small ring barrel, the 03 receiver ring is thinner without an improvment in the metal, so it is not possable to compare the 03 to the Mauser 98, the 03 just does not have enough metal, again Winchester/Browning was just a short buggy ride down the freeway from Springfield, and Browning had no problem finding his way to the patent office, in those days the ride to Washington from Connecicut was not a short buggy ride, train ride yes, I suppose if he rode the train he could rent a buggy when he got there.
I was told the CAR98 was scary, more scary than the 03, I chambered one in 8mm06 and ran 20 rounds through it, I got it between being transformed into a sporter, seems the builder could not get the bands over the front sight and the bolt clocked out of sink and then quit, the barrel will fit most large ring Mausers and there are a lot of good chambering for the small ring Mauser with large shanks, but the scary part about the CAR98 was more about the way the trigger was set up than the thin front receiver ring. I visited a friend, master machenest/gunsmith, he was building 20 rifles, one did not make it through his certiquing, told me why he set one aside, after explaining his problem with the trigger, barrel and receiver and stock I told him to "watch this" the firing pin went forward without pulling the trigger, all the numbers matched and he knew the rifle was built with all the parts present in the pile
His problem he could not order 20 stocks, 20 triggers etc, to complete 20 rifles, the one CAR98 would require more time to fit, I should have made him a deal on a trade, but I guard against someone questioning my motives as to getting a good deal and trying to beat someone out of something.
F. Guffey
No way to compare the 03 with the Mauser, with one exception, the CAR98 was a small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel meaning it was the same diameter as the small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel, the receiver ring was thinner, odly enough and a coiencedence? the 03 receiver is the same diameter as the small ring Mauser with a shank that is larger than the small ring barrel, the 03 receiver ring is thinner without an improvment in the metal, so it is not possable to compare the 03 to the Mauser 98, the 03 just does not have enough metal, again Winchester/Browning was just a short buggy ride down the freeway from Springfield, and Browning had no problem finding his way to the patent office, in those days the ride to Washington from Connecicut was not a short buggy ride, train ride yes, I suppose if he rode the train he could rent a buggy when he got there.
I was told the CAR98 was scary, more scary than the 03, I chambered one in 8mm06 and ran 20 rounds through it, I got it between being transformed into a sporter, seems the builder could not get the bands over the front sight and the bolt clocked out of sink and then quit, the barrel will fit most large ring Mausers and there are a lot of good chambering for the small ring Mauser with large shanks, but the scary part about the CAR98 was more about the way the trigger was set up than the thin front receiver ring. I visited a friend, master machenest/gunsmith, he was building 20 rifles, one did not make it through his certiquing, told me why he set one aside, after explaining his problem with the trigger, barrel and receiver and stock I told him to "watch this" the firing pin went forward without pulling the trigger, all the numbers matched and he knew the rifle was built with all the parts present in the pile
His problem he could not order 20 stocks, 20 triggers etc, to complete 20 rifles, the one CAR98 would require more time to fit, I should have made him a deal on a trade, but I guard against someone questioning my motives as to getting a good deal and trying to beat someone out of something.
F. Guffey
Gunplummer
New member
If your Master Gunsmith thought the 98 was so scary, maybe he should not have been building twenty of them.
First he is not MY gunsmith, I am not that vain, he is 82 years old, I check on him often as does others to see if he is OK and to see if he needs help doing ANYTHING, will try again, the rifle was not a STANDARD 98, it was not AN ORIGINAL Mauser, it was a small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel, if the rifle is loaded and dropped on the butt of the stock it goes off, not by design but by the way it was designed, correcting the problem involves pinning the stock to block the trigger from going forward by welding the trigger guard opening in front of the trigger. I did not tell him "What you have to understand" or "What you are forgetting" or any number of responses I would consider rather rude. The receiver ring on that particular receiver is THIN! Call it risky or scary, I choose to barrel the Car98 in a low pressure chambering, and I test fired one with an 8mm06 chambering.
The rifles he was building were small ring Mausers chambered in 7mm57 and 6.5mm55, he had new barrels with small shanks.
And upon request I take my grand dauthter, she wants to visit his pet pit, a very massive dog.
F. Guffey
The rifles he was building were small ring Mausers chambered in 7mm57 and 6.5mm55, he had new barrels with small shanks.
And upon request I take my grand dauthter, she wants to visit his pet pit, a very massive dog.
F. Guffey
The low number myth continues. Having done a spreadsheet analysis of Hatcher's data, I think it's BS.
The actual primary causes of receiver failure were
- putting heavy Mobil Grease on the old 220 gr Cupro Nickle bullets to reduce fouling. Try that on your M-70 and see what happens
- wrong ammo, as 8x57
- soft headed cases from WCC cartridge company that failed in the cone breech design
- plugged bores
I have collected and shot 03s' for 50+ years and have yet to see one that has proper headspace fail with proper modern ammo.
IMO Hatcher was a God at the NRA, so they just keep repeating the story w/o ever testing his data.
Amazing how many "low number" guns were rebuilt and used in WW II. I once saw SA serial # 358 at a gunshow that, except for the rear sight, looked like an 03A3. God only knows how many barrels, stocks and bolts that old girl had worn out.
If anyone kept records like these on P-14s, SMLEs, GEWs, M-1s, M 70s etc. we'd all be scared to shoot one.
The 03' myth is almost as good as the Ross myth!
BTW, if that is a complete action and you wish to sell it, let me know.
Finally here is an R.F. Sedgley Springfield sporter in 9.3x62 (one of one) built on a rod bayonet action for a family member (German heritage) that shot hundreds of rounds of the hot German 9.3 ammo and still takes a min headspace gauge and, obviously, is intact.
The actual primary causes of receiver failure were
- putting heavy Mobil Grease on the old 220 gr Cupro Nickle bullets to reduce fouling. Try that on your M-70 and see what happens
- wrong ammo, as 8x57
- soft headed cases from WCC cartridge company that failed in the cone breech design
- plugged bores
I have collected and shot 03s' for 50+ years and have yet to see one that has proper headspace fail with proper modern ammo.
IMO Hatcher was a God at the NRA, so they just keep repeating the story w/o ever testing his data.
Amazing how many "low number" guns were rebuilt and used in WW II. I once saw SA serial # 358 at a gunshow that, except for the rear sight, looked like an 03A3. God only knows how many barrels, stocks and bolts that old girl had worn out.
If anyone kept records like these on P-14s, SMLEs, GEWs, M-1s, M 70s etc. we'd all be scared to shoot one.
The 03' myth is almost as good as the Ross myth!
BTW, if that is a complete action and you wish to sell it, let me know.
Finally here is an R.F. Sedgley Springfield sporter in 9.3x62 (one of one) built on a rod bayonet action for a family member (German heritage) that shot hundreds of rounds of the hot German 9.3 ammo and still takes a min headspace gauge and, obviously, is intact.
I don't think anyone's ever suggested that none of the low serial number guns can work or survive. Obviously most did, or the total number of failures would not have been as small as it was. It's just that there's a small element of Russian roulette to using one that many people don't want to participate in. The mere fact one can shatter the old receivers with a hammer is perfectly adequate evidence that the original heat treating process, even done correctly, was not the best way to go about making a safe rifle receiver. The double heat treated receivers of the same steel, and the later nickel steel receivers are both inherently more difficult to damage in a way that endangers the shooter (shattering).
However little you may think of Hatcher, unless you want to make him out to be an outright liar, it would not be correct to imply this was all somehow his idea. He reported the discovery was made by engineers at the National Brass and Copper Tube Company in 1917, when a gun they had for testing military ammunition blew up after only firing 252 rounds. It was their engineers who determined that the case hardening of the shattered receiver was not to specification and that the steel had been heated too far before quenching. Hatcher admits that he was just one year out of the Ordnance School of Technology at the time, and did not claim metallurgic expertise in the matter.
However little you may think of Hatcher, unless you want to make him out to be an outright liar, it would not be correct to imply this was all somehow his idea. He reported the discovery was made by engineers at the National Brass and Copper Tube Company in 1917, when a gun they had for testing military ammunition blew up after only firing 252 rounds. It was their engineers who determined that the case hardening of the shattered receiver was not to specification and that the steel had been heated too far before quenching. Hatcher admits that he was just one year out of the Ordnance School of Technology at the time, and did not claim metallurgic expertise in the matter.
Gunplummer
New member
I have been paying attention to this thread and it has been quite an education. Years back, I left them alone because of the bad reputation they had, and almost no one brought any in. With all the info that was posted, it would seem that the story is much more complicated than it appears. I do see them in a different light now, but am still leaning in cautions direction. A lot of rumor and conjecture was laid to rest for me on this thread, but there is always that chance some of those studies were correct.
National Brass and Copper Tube Company was one of the companies that made the soft head ammo that would probably fail in any cone breeched rifle.
Cone breech rifles need good cases, hence my unanswered challenge for anyone to produce a properly headspaced low number 03 that has "blown up" with modern (post WW II) ammo.
Another of my unsafe low # guns that has seen 100s of rounds of post WW II ball and still is intact.
Cone breech rifles need good cases, hence my unanswered challenge for anyone to produce a properly headspaced low number 03 that has "blown up" with modern (post WW II) ammo.
Another of my unsafe low # guns that has seen 100s of rounds of post WW II ball and still is intact.
It is probably the primary offender. It is significant that it was folks from this company who first "discovered" the brittle receiver problem when their M1903 rifle blew up. Somewhere in my ammo collection, scattered over three states, I have about 200 rounds of ammo made by National Brass....during 1917-18. According to my less than scientific file test; those cases are much softer than other .30 caliber cases made during WWI.
Brandy, I read your posts with interest. Rifles blew up for a variety of reasons. Cleaning patches in the bores, failure to remove the grease or cosmoline from the bore, soft cartridge cases, etc. The Army came had a .30caliber guard round. That round had a low muzzle velocity and a bullet with a rounded ogive. There is an instance where a soldier claimed that his M1903blew up when firing a guard round.
Lots of guns blew up during WWI and WWII. Machine guns blew up with regularity because of the failure to set headspace and timing. The M2 .50 caliber machine gun still blows up for the same reason.
Nothing yet said indicates there were no early '03's with improper heat treatment bad enough to contribute to failures. This issue is clearly confused by having multiple variables involved in each failure. For example, did the copper tubing company make some soft brass that contributed to the problem? It sounds like they did. Does that mean it was solely responsible for the failure? It doesn't prove that, either. After all, their second gun never blew up that I see any mention of. Were the brass tubing company engineers blowing smoke about the out-of-spec case hardening and "burned" steel? Hatcher didn't think so, but admitted he wasn't a metallurgist, so that's fuzzy.
And all the above begs the question of safety upon bursting. Clearly, from hammer shattering alone, low SN '03 receivers, even when properly heat treated, are more brittle and less tough than either the later double-heat treated steel or nickel steel receivers. That may not make or break someone's decision to own and use one, but it certainly can't be called a desirable feature. Even if when a burst is caused by egregious abuse of a properly heat treated low number gun, the fragments from that burst present a greater hazard than the burst of a more malleable late receiver.
I don't want to exaggerate the danger, because it is not great. But given the logic axiom that even one exception disproves a rule, neither should it be dismissed as an entirely 100% baseless rumor. I think Dr. Lyons does a good job of putting the risk in perspective without just entirely blowing off the heat treating issue:
The only hard point of hard disagreement I detect is that Brandy says his spreadsheet showed no correlation between failures and early heat treatment, while Dr. Lyons found a correspondence to specific years of manufacture, indicating it was a factor. The General who refused to withdraw early numbers from service appears to have proved that if the guns had been in service for awhile without blowing up, then they were highly unlikely to do so later. That fits with both the early bad heat treatment and early bad ammunition theories.
There is an old corollary to Murphy's Law that says wherever more than one mathematician is involved in an erroneous calculation, the fault will never be placed. That certainly applies to multiple variables.
And all the above begs the question of safety upon bursting. Clearly, from hammer shattering alone, low SN '03 receivers, even when properly heat treated, are more brittle and less tough than either the later double-heat treated steel or nickel steel receivers. That may not make or break someone's decision to own and use one, but it certainly can't be called a desirable feature. Even if when a burst is caused by egregious abuse of a properly heat treated low number gun, the fragments from that burst present a greater hazard than the burst of a more malleable late receiver.
I don't want to exaggerate the danger, because it is not great. But given the logic axiom that even one exception disproves a rule, neither should it be dismissed as an entirely 100% baseless rumor. I think Dr. Lyons does a good job of putting the risk in perspective without just entirely blowing off the heat treating issue:
Dr. Lyons said:
The only hard point of hard disagreement I detect is that Brandy says his spreadsheet showed no correlation between failures and early heat treatment, while Dr. Lyons found a correspondence to specific years of manufacture, indicating it was a factor. The General who refused to withdraw early numbers from service appears to have proved that if the guns had been in service for awhile without blowing up, then they were highly unlikely to do so later. That fits with both the early bad heat treatment and early bad ammunition theories.
There is an old corollary to Murphy's Law that says wherever more than one mathematician is involved in an erroneous calculation, the fault will never be placed. That certainly applies to multiple variables.
Dr. Lyons used Hatcher's Notebook for his analysis. That database is incomplete. Some of the pictures I posted earlier are accidents dated after Hatcher's database ends.
His analysis is invalid as it does not account every low number that ever shattered.
It would have been interesting to find given that a receiver shattered, what was the probability that it was a low number receiver. I will bet that number is closer to 99%.
Dr. Lyon is just another opinionated person justifying his use of low number receivers. He just uses statisitics.
Any one can do the same, but do it for yourself. Don't try to convince the simple or weak minded that it is safe, unless you want the responsibility that comes when someone hurts themself based on your bad advice.
His analysis is invalid as it does not account every low number that ever shattered.
It would have been interesting to find given that a receiver shattered, what was the probability that it was a low number receiver. I will bet that number is closer to 99%.
Dr. Lyon is just another opinionated person justifying his use of low number receivers. He just uses statisitics.
Any one can do the same, but do it for yourself. Don't try to convince the simple or weak minded that it is safe, unless you want the responsibility that comes when someone hurts themself based on your bad advice.
Maybe I confused you as to my position? I'm on the side that avoids those low numbers for shooting because of the shattering failure mode, and am not in agreement that bad heat treatment is a total fraud that should be dismissed out of hand. Lyons isn't, either. But I do concede the vast majority of those early rifles survived actual service. The matter of risk is open to revision with more complete data, and I expect Lyons's mention that all the blown guns came from specific early years of manufacture supports your contention that an analysis of probability of bursting by year would put practically all such instances in the low serial number range.
Lyons used Hatcher, but not exclusively or blindly. He had four sources in his biography and he points to some of Hatcher's errors in his notes:
Lyons isn't perfect. For example he points to Hatcher's error regarding failure of RIA SN 445,136 as being post double-heat treat, but should have said it was post Nickel Steel adoption (assuming Hatcher correctly reported that nickel steel at RIA began with SN 319,921). But flaws don't always totally invalidate a result. If you consider some later failures in the civilian sporters or in rifles sent to foreign military services that the Army never heard back about, you would likely have to raise Lyons's 0.7/100K number some; perhaps even double it over enough time. But I don't think its realistic to expect it to be off by an order of magnitude. A thousand blown sporters or foreign military service rifles would have got somebody's attention and some publicity.
As I suggested, shooting a low number Springfield includes an element of playing Russian Roulette, but doing it with one cartridge in a giant revolver that has a cylinder capacity on the order of maybe 70,000-140,000 rounds. I realize that's based on surmise, but if you inflate Lyons's number too much it becomes increasingly improbable that the problem went unremarked, unnoticed and unreported.
Lyons used Hatcher, but not exclusively or blindly. He had four sources in his biography and he points to some of Hatcher's errors in his notes:
Lyons said:
Lyons isn't perfect. For example he points to Hatcher's error regarding failure of RIA SN 445,136 as being post double-heat treat, but should have said it was post Nickel Steel adoption (assuming Hatcher correctly reported that nickel steel at RIA began with SN 319,921). But flaws don't always totally invalidate a result. If you consider some later failures in the civilian sporters or in rifles sent to foreign military services that the Army never heard back about, you would likely have to raise Lyons's 0.7/100K number some; perhaps even double it over enough time. But I don't think its realistic to expect it to be off by an order of magnitude. A thousand blown sporters or foreign military service rifles would have got somebody's attention and some publicity.
As I suggested, shooting a low number Springfield includes an element of playing Russian Roulette, but doing it with one cartridge in a giant revolver that has a cylinder capacity on the order of maybe 70,000-140,000 rounds. I realize that's based on surmise, but if you inflate Lyons's number too much it becomes increasingly improbable that the problem went unremarked, unnoticed and unreported.
think
Slamfire: You pretty obviously have strong feelings about this issue. Those feelings certainly clouded your last post.
Normally, you make a clear argument - the shattered receivers were impressive.
But....
His analysis is incomplete. Is that the same as invalid?
The "bet" about the 99% probablility - you are, in essence, making up a statistic.
The opinionated person, etc. - argumentum ad hominem - just because he is opinionated does mean that he is wrong. Just because he uses statistics does not mean he is wrong.
It is also improper to suggest that there is a vast group of people (just another opinionated person, after all) who try to justify untenable positions. (Y'know...we all fit into that "opinionated person" suit - you surely do and you just made up a statistic to go with it. Easy to do, ain't it?)
The extension that a person is "simple and weak minded" if they are accepting of the use of Lo#Spflds is unwarranted, as is the suggestion that the only persons who could be approached would be "simple or weak minded". The last assumption - that someone will hurt themself is also unwarranted.
A number of these things are common enough problems in emotional arguments, common enough that they have names but i was too lazy to look them up.
What we need here is clear thinking.
Pete
Slamfire: You pretty obviously have strong feelings about this issue. Those feelings certainly clouded your last post.
Normally, you make a clear argument - the shattered receivers were impressive.
But....
His analysis is incomplete. Is that the same as invalid?
The "bet" about the 99% probablility - you are, in essence, making up a statistic.
The opinionated person, etc. - argumentum ad hominem - just because he is opinionated does mean that he is wrong. Just because he uses statistics does not mean he is wrong.
It is also improper to suggest that there is a vast group of people (just another opinionated person, after all) who try to justify untenable positions. (Y'know...we all fit into that "opinionated person" suit - you surely do and you just made up a statistic to go with it. Easy to do, ain't it?)
The extension that a person is "simple and weak minded" if they are accepting of the use of Lo#Spflds is unwarranted, as is the suggestion that the only persons who could be approached would be "simple or weak minded". The last assumption - that someone will hurt themself is also unwarranted.
A number of these things are common enough problems in emotional arguments, common enough that they have names but i was too lazy to look them up.
What we need here is clear thinking.
Pete
Last edited:
Actually my challenge was....
That I would pay $1000.00 to anyone who could produce a correctly headspaced low number 03' that "blew up" with modern ammo.
I ran that for about 15 years when I was a really serious 03 collector (Pre WW One only) and never got a taker. Just another gunwriter myth that gets repeated w/o ever being tested.
"Microgrooves won't shoot cast bullets."
"Semi-auto rifles jam"
"Revolvers are more reliable than Semi-autos"
"You need a 600 yard rifle to hunt Antelope"
and so on.
That I would pay $1000.00 to anyone who could produce a correctly headspaced low number 03' that "blew up" with modern ammo.
I ran that for about 15 years when I was a really serious 03 collector (Pre WW One only) and never got a taker. Just another gunwriter myth that gets repeated w/o ever being tested.
"Microgrooves won't shoot cast bullets."
"Semi-auto rifles jam"
"Revolvers are more reliable than Semi-autos"
"You need a 600 yard rifle to hunt Antelope"
and so on.
I think your money is safe, but not necessarily because no fatally flawed heat treating was ever done. That may well be impossible to settle, as the number that have not already been shot enough to prove they don't suffer a fatal heat treating flaw is likely small. And, by definition, they are not being shot. If I owned an unused low number gun, unless it could be inspected non-destructively by x-ray or sonics, I would be sure to keep it intact and secure its collector value by not letting anyone shoot it.
For modern purchasers, I think the issue is the failure mode for low number guns with bad headspace or that get defective brass or that suffer an overload or other abuse. That failure seems likely to pose more hazard than a similar failure in a late number gun due to greater fragmentation. I realize that's speculative on my part, but I doubt anyone will volunteer the resources needed to prove it one way or the other? It's just that it would stop me from buying or recommending a low number Springfield to use in Vintage Military Rifle matches or for sporterizing. But that's a personal decision.
For modern purchasers, I think the issue is the failure mode for low number guns with bad headspace or that get defective brass or that suffer an overload or other abuse. That failure seems likely to pose more hazard than a similar failure in a late number gun due to greater fragmentation. I realize that's speculative on my part, but I doubt anyone will volunteer the resources needed to prove it one way or the other? It's just that it would stop me from buying or recommending a low number Springfield to use in Vintage Military Rifle matches or for sporterizing. But that's a personal decision.
Last edited: