Safe firing of a Rock Island Springfield 1903

[tahunua001]

my sentiments exactly. I have a low numbered Springfield receiver manufactured in 1912, therefore by the common understanding it is considered unsafe to fire. however, it has a barrel from 1919 so it was shot so much during WWI that Springfield had to replace the barrel. if it can withstand that many rounds then I'm fairly confident that it is one of the better crafted of the low numbered rifles.

 

[Willie Sutton]

" however, it has a barrel from 1919 so it was shot so much during WWI that Springfield had to replace the barrel."


To play devils advocate, there are a dozen other reasons for a BBL to be replaced during rework, especially on rifles that were fielded using corrosive ammo. You cannot draw any receiver strength conclusions from this.



Willie

.

 

[Bart B.]

In the 1960's, a US Navy small arms unit took a low numbered 1903 and started loading LC M72 match .30-06 primed cases with IMR4895 under 172-gr. machine gun bullets in 2 grain increments until no more powder could be put in the case under the bullet. After these were all fired in that '03, it's locking lugs still held headspace within limits.

They shifted to IMR4198 powder and did the same thing. Soon the bolt lugs got set forward a bit but a case full of it didn't blow the receiver. The bolt had to be beat open with a mallet for the last few rounds.

Only after using Bullseye pistol powder and about half a case full did that receiver finally let go.

 

[Slamfire]

Last night I watched a PBS show I taped, "Why Ships Sink". The primary emphasis was safety on cruise ships. Since this is the 100th year of the sinking of the Titanic, of course that was brought in, for the entertainment value I guess.

However they had a segment on rivets and steel. They conducted a Charpie impact test of 100 year old steel and modern steel. I can only assume the old steel was plain carbon steel, they never specified the composition of the modern steel. Could be an alloy steel. Anyway the modern steel was seven times as strong, or rather absorbed seven times the energy before failure, than the 100 year old steel. They claimed that old steel had a lot of sulfur, made the comment that the old steel was not as strong as today’s steel because temperatures were not controlled during smelting. Wish they had spent more time on this topic as I would have liked to know more specifics.

Anyway, old steel was never that great and being seven times weaker than modern ought to give someone something to think about when considering the strength of these old actions.

These are some low number receivers that did not survive a blow up test.

 

[RC20]

Funny though, that old steel was used in millions of guns that worked.

I think its situation specific as to what risk you want to assume.

We are getting whigged out over this when probably everyone reading this drives a car regularly and thinks nothing of it.

Missing a point in that a shot out barrel is a shot out barrel and a lot of rounds went through it. Corrosive or not its had an (pun intended) and acid test.

By the logic going here, none of these should be shot.

Modern guns do not do proof tests either. You are probably at higher risk that a bad sample slipped through with one of those than a 1903 that's had enough rounds through it to require a barrel change.

People shoot MNs all the time and you want to think about Russian quality control?

If it was mine I would shot it, and I am damn risk adverse (I think about it all the time and do my best to mitigate it or avoid it)

 

[Slamfire]

We are getting whigged out over this when probably everyone reading this drives a car regularly and thinks nothing of it.

I have a vintage Chevy Truck. Ride it regularly. No air bags, has a thin pad over its hard metal dash, I did install a lap/seat belt. The rear end will break loose and it is very scary to be rotating around in the middle of a street. Had that happen twice. I am always worried about having to brake hard on slick surfaces. If I roll over I am certain the cab will crush me, and if I hit something head on, the steering wheel will crush my chest.

Older stuff has its own risks. You can get away with all fingers, toes, eyes doing something stupid with modern stuff, that older stuff, it will take a finger, toe, or an eye.

You can blow up any action if you try hard enough, but not to let anyone think that Mosin Nagants are indestructible, here is a picture.

Notice the fine gas handling capabilities of a MN, you would only lose the right side of your face, the left side looks nicely protected.