The low serials were proof fired. Ergo, the seat belt was tested.
Said rifles have been shot innumerable times (sans the one found in Grandpas attic that has been there since 1918). Seat belt has been tested each time. Abuse can blow up an rifle (we have all see the pictures). None are immune. 1903 ALL have a less than wonderful gas blow by diversion (i.e. the famous Hatcher hole addition)
I have not found the concept of a service life around 1900, but today, things are designed with a service life. Someone comes up with a profile of how many rounds, how many miles, how many years, and then the product is designed for, lets say, 10 years with a goal of 20 years. Military service is extremely abusive on an item. As an example, get in a high mileage rental car. I have been in a few that were kept past 40,000 miles, and the vehicles stank, carpet burns, the steering felt loose, one I turned back in, something was broken in the suspension.
It has been proven time and again that rebuilds don’t have the same average lifespan as factory new. With each rebuild the life expectancy turns out to be less. It would be natural to be suspicious of someone claiming that a car with 300,000 miles ought to last forever because the bugs had all been worked out. However, it seems that low number Springfields just get better with age.
My opinion, these old rifles are less strong and less safe than when they were when new. When new, they were built out of low grade materials, materials that today are used for rebar and rail road spikes, and the production processes were so bad, that all of the low number receivers were suspect. The Army could not sort them out, but kept them in service for monetary considerations.
The Marine Corp continued to use the low SN guns.
Safety standards were different. People were cheap, things were expensive. People were disposable, in fact, for the services, it was cheaper to injury a Soldier than to replace a rifle. The cost of recovery and rehabilitation was born by a separate agency. I can recall back then, no safety belts, no air bags, I have seen pictures of GI’s standing outside their foxholes in open air nuclear tests. Used to run across statements from GI’s who washed off the ships in the Baker and Able tests, about how many of their bud’s died from cancer. As you can see in these pictures, no one wore protective clothing.
http://life.time.com/history/able-and-baker-photos-from-two-american-a-bomb-tests-in-july-1946/#12
And then there was the Guatemala Syphilis experiment:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-14712089
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment
Today there might be objections about being injected with a live syphilis virus, without consent or knowledge.
I do not agree with the Army’s decision to keep low number Springfields in service. I consider this unethical as Soldiers were hurt, and they knew Soldiers/Sailors/Marines would be hurt. Yes, the Army and Marine Corp kept these rifles in service, but, was that the correct decision, and why? And does that validate their continued use now?
Also in vogue was the notion of greasing bullets. That was done in one of the 20s National Matches despite specifically being told not to do it as it would blow up rifles (regardless of treatment) and it did when they greased them (gets onto the cartridge and then the head-space disappears)
Your source is Hatcher. Hatcher always misdirects blame away from the Army. The tin can ammunition was a total public fiasco for the Army, and it was all their fault.
Previous to the National Matches, ammunition was being tested for the National Matches and the tests are being made known to the public. The Army manufactured ammunition beat specially donated commercial ammunition for the National Matches. You just have to understand the advertizing value of having your ammunition accepted and used at the National Matches at the time. Army tin can ammunition beats out all others, the Army brags about it in the Arms and the Man.
However, prior to Camp Perry, at the Wakefield matches, it is reported in the Arms and Man that the tin can bullet fouls just as badly, and the fouling is harder to remove than the cupro-nickel jacketed fouling. I am certain the word got around very quickly. If you have never experienced the sort of bullet fouling cupro-nickel produces you cannot imagine the zero changes and expansion of group size that occurs just after a few bullets go down the barrel. This was the National Matches, you win, you get your picture in the paper, bragging rights for a full year. Anyone who wanted to win was going to grease the heck out of their bullets, so they could shoot the smallest group into the middle of the target. This was not going to happen if you shot the tin can ammunition naked.
But, given the amount of time between manufacture, the tin had cold welded itself to the case necks, creating a god awful bore obstruction, and rifles blew up.
This was highly embarrassing to the Army. Commercial manufacturers whose ammunition lost out to the Army ammunition could made a solid case about Army favoritism and Army incompetence as the “winning” Ordnance Department ammunition just happened to blow up rifles.
The Army puts out a denial:
1 Oct 1921 Arms and the Man, Editorial by Brig-Gen Fred H. Phillips, Jr, Secretary NRA
The National Match Ammunition
Use of the national Match ammunition through the Camp Perry shooting season has amply demonstrated that, in the hands of intelligent rifleman, the “tin can” cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe.
The fact that the National Matches closed without recording one serious accident in connection with the use of this ammunition seems to be a final and clinching argument, that when properly handled, no disastrous results may be expect. The only instance of rifles having been damaged-there were two out of the thousand-odd in use that suffered from “blow back”-were cause the presence of grease in excessive quantity and were the result of the shooter’s own carelessness. Fortunately the men who experience the blow backs were only superficially hurt. The lesion, however, in connection with the blow backs was plain.
The high degree of accuracy attained in the manufacture of this ammunition cannot be question. It is without a doubt the finest machine-made product that has ever been turned out.
The high quality of this ammunition, together with the remarkable accuracy properties of the new type of National Match rifle will do a very great deal toward promoting the art of marksmanship. …..
Whether the new “tin can” type ammunition may be regarded as a suitable service load for use by troops in the field is a matter for later an more mature determination. But little more could be expected in accuracy and wind bucking qualities from a strictly machine-made product than that exhibited by this year’s tin-plated ball cartridges.
In 1921, the Army’s official position is that the tin can ammunition is perfectly safe. It was not. The tin can ammunition was dangerous because the tin cold welded to the brass case neck creating a bore obstruction. The Army had over one million low number 03’s on the firing line, and these rifles had been blowing up for years because they were defectively manufactured. Instead of admitting that blowup’s were due to defective rifles, the Army had been blaming greased bullets. (The Swiss used greased bullets in their service ammunition until the 1980’s!) When it came to the tin can ammunition, instead of admitting that both Army issued rifles and the tin can ammunition were defective, the Army continued to blame greased bullets. This is a coverup plain and simple.
I have not found anything in print from the period 1918 to 1921 about defective low number receivers, and the fact many of these receivers were known to be unsafe in 1918, when the production processes were changed. I don’t know if the Army ever issued a statement about low number receivers being defective. Instead, throughout this period, the Army is issuing these rifles and selling them to the public. Only after the 1927 report (which recommended that all low number Springfields should be scrapped) is there any inkling in the public domain that there is a problem with these rifles. I think this was through leaks from the people on the board. When Hatcher finally writes about this episode, in 1947, the 03 has been replaced with the Garand. Hatcher has been a contributing writer in all this time period, he was there at the very beginning of this affair, but he provides no warning to anyone, over decades, about the hazards of low number receivers.
