Springfield 1903?

[Slamfire]

So why didn't Krags "blow up"? Some did, and bolts were brittle.

I have gone through every page of the American Rifleman magazine, from WW2 onward, and I recall one derogatory Dope Bag letter over the Krag metallurgy and heat treatment. It is my recollection that the author claimed the Krag bolts were “flame hardened” and generally he expressed a low opinion of the metallurgical quality. It must be understood that between the wars, Government Arsenals were just as underfunded as the rest of the military. The parsimony of Congress, combined with a “kick the can down the road” attitude of military leadership meant that the Arsenals went through boom and bust cycles, with the bust cycles lasting decades. During the lean years, equipment became outdated, Arsenals would always be behind technological advancements.

Colt Firearms had the same problem in the 70’s, 80’, 90’s, etc, as the company owners took profits out, but did not put funding back in. We all have seen this in Colt firearms of the period.

I am of the opinion that the single heat treat issue was finally raised in the late 20’s, and by Springfield Armory. I have no proof, but by the late 20’s I do not see a military need for more 03’s. There were 2.5 million M1917’s in storage, future production of a semi automatic replacement was years, if not decades off, and considering the ideas of “endless prosperity” and the “war to end all wars” attitudes of the times, I believe Springfield Armory was under the threat of a real shut down. An order for 1,000,000 new 03’s would have been just the ticket. As it was, we know an independent board was established, and it makes sense, because if this was started by SA, any investigation would have had to have been taken out of their hands, given that they would have had a financial benefit in the matter. So this is my pie in the sky conspiracy. Springfield Armory was perfectly placed, as they had all the data, to make a case that all low number rifles should be scrapped, and replaced with new rifles.

Hatcher would have us believe that unicorn sightings were more common than single heat treat receiver failures. I do not believe this, as this individuals testimony reveals that 03 blowups were far more common than Hatcher has lead us to believe.

From Arms and the Man, 1917 “In Defense of “the Short Gun”. By Captain James H. Keough

I can attest, by having experienced the misfortune of blowing both locking lugs from the bolt of my service rifle in the 900 yard state of the Leech Cup Match at Camp Perry in 1913, which fortunately did me no more harm than to record a goose egg for my first record shot at this distance, forcing me from the match and putting me out of the running for the Palma Team. The shock of the blow-back had no serious effect on my nervous system, as I was well hardened to the echo of the boiler shop (as the shed in which the International Meter Matchers were held was dubbed) by being a daily constant in the several matches. On this same day on which this accident occurred a team mate, Col Sergt Leary, of the Massachusetts Infantry, had a similar accident, but was slightly bruised about the face. The cause of these blow-ups was attributed to the bolts being too hard or burned in the case hardening process. Last year at the annual encampment of the 6th Massachusetts Infantry, at Martha’s Vineyard, a blow-black put a sergeant of one of the companies in the hospital for a week and nearly cost him the loss of one eye, and I know of another case nearby when two bad accidents occurred in one afternoon, the rifles being blown to pieces in both instances and one of the men having the side of his face torn away. These are the only cases that I recall as having happened in my locality or where I was at the time. Records of many others are well known, so that perhaps there is some cause for this alarm as to the safety of the (M1917) Enfield, which we all know*, is not as strong as the US Magazine rifle…​

* Information had not reached the shooting community that the 1917 Enfield was a different action from the SMLE.

Very shortly after this article was published, B. Gen Fred Phillips wrote an editiorial stating the Offical Army position on this matter.

Arms and the Man, Brig Gen Fred H. Phillips Jr 1917

Blown Blots and Split Barrels

Recently there have been reported from rifle clubs several cases where the barrels of Army rifles have burst and where bolts have blown out.
To those who are not familiar with the circumstances attending these accidents-none of which fortunately have cost human life- the mishaps have suggested that possibly the Springfield rifle is an unsafe arm, and that practice with it may be attended by fatalities.

The truth of the matter is that the Springfield is quite as safe as any high powered rifle, and possibly a much more reliable gun than one could expect from a weapon the charge of which exerts 50,000 pounds per square inch pressure in the chamber. The reason why one hears more of “blow-ups’ in the Springfield is that more rifle club members use this arm than use any other one make of commercial weapon, and consequently, in point of number, although not necessarily in point of numbers, although not necessarily in point of percentage, the accidents from the military type rifle may appear greater.

Emphatically the Springfield is not an unsafe gun. As it comes from the arsenal, it can be used year in and year out and so far as the likelihood of accidents is concerned, be as good as ever-but provide that it is properly handled and properly cared for.

If one takes the trouble to inquire into the causes of accidents with the Springfield, it will more than likely result in the conclusion that 99 our of 100 mishaps such as blown bolts and split barrels result either from the use of hand-loads or special loads improperly or carelessly put together in the making, greased chambers, or both.

In short, there nothing the matter with the Springfield as long as it is used for the ammunition for which it was designed, except of course in the very small percentage of cases where a bolt has been over hardened or some similar mechanical defect has crept in during manufacture. ​

This official Army position came out after the receiver blow up’s at National Copper and Brass, which lead to a shut down of the Springfield Armory production lines. I consider this a coverup. The Army, in print, is deigning they have a rifle problem. Given that the B Gen who wrote this was a General in the pre War Regular Army, and not some Johnny come lately, he is an extremely powerful and well placed individual. After this the Army never again published an account of a blown up 03 unless the author claimed the blow up was due to his personnel negligence.


As for after Hatcher’s List, these images came from the Springfield Armory web collection. Just go to their web site and brose.

Blown up 1932

Receiver 323816

Receiver 570, 095 Blown up 1932

1931 Receiver 718, 233

Receiver 764, 040 blown 1931

 

[James K]

The split barrel (570095) is not a receiver failure; the pictures show the usual result of firing with an obstructed barrel. The barrel blew apart and split the receiver; the same thing would have happened with almost any receiver.

There were also reports of flaws in the barrel billets. At one point, SA drilled and chambered the rough billet (unthreaded) for a short proof cartridge and fired it as a preliminary test. That was intended to weed out most of the bad barrels before any significant amount of time or money had been spent on them. (I have seen some evidence that Mauser did the same, but the Mauser experts tell me that due to the superiority of German steel, no proof testing was done until the barreled action had been fully assembled.)

Barrels were also proved after completion but before they were installed. It is unclear whether that was done with replacement barrels, but one would see no reason to make an exception.

The note on those 2.5 million Model 1917's is interesting and worth a comment. When FDR ordered 1.1 million of them sent to England in June 1940, Army Ordnamce watched a large part of their war reserve sail off into the sunrise and panicked. With war almost certainly approaching, and M1 rifle production proceeding at the pace of an arthritic snail, they first cancelled the British order to Remington for a .303 version of the M1903, and then gave Remington a contract for the U.S. version. That ultimately led to the M1903A3, made by Remington and Smith-Corona, and to the M1903A4.

Jim

 

[Slamfire]

The split barrel (570095) is not a receiver failure; the pictures show the usual result of firing with an obstructed barrel. The barrel blew apart and split the receiver; the same thing would have happened with almost any receiver.

Others have made the same comment, that a bore obstruction is unfair and that any receiver would have blown.

I lost the link, and anyway all that is left on the Swedish site is a picture, but a Swedish site had a series of videos of blow up tests they conducted. The test consisted of driving a bullet down the barrel, putting the rifle in a fixture, and firing it!

What was remarkable was that none of the modern rifles they tested blew their receivers. The barrel on a M700 ruptured, and that was the only barrel that I remember bursting.

There are some conclusions that can be drawn from that experiment. Modern rifles have excellent breech protection. If the case head blows on a 03, or a small ring Mauser, and the receiver ring does not blow, then that is a remarkable occurrence, because a ruptured receiver is the norm. Also, modern materials provide a safety margin that is not found in the old plain carbon steels of the past.

 

[James K]

Hi, slamfire,

A split barrel like that was not the result of a receiver failure, it was the cause of it. What happened, as shown by the severe bend at mid-barrel, was that the obstruction caused the normal heat spike failure at that point. When the barrel softened and blew, it split. As the two pieces broke apart, the rear ends acted like two levers on the receiver ring, pulling the receiver ring apart. That force is great enough that few receiver rings will stand up to it, but it would be worse in a brittle or cast receiver.

Jim

 

[thallub]

The M1903 has a major design flaw; the coned breech. The rear of the cartridge case is unsupported for about 1/10 inch. A cartridge head separation in a coned breech rifle is often a catastrophic event. Couple the coned breech with a soft cartridge case and you have the recipe for a kaboom. The original M70 Winchester and the M1917 Enfield rifle also have coned breeches.

i'm a lefty. Many years ago i was on the privately owned weapons range at Ft. Sill. The guy sitting on on my left at the same bench had a cartridge case separation with his beautiful Model 70 in .270. The rifle and the scope were destroyed. Luckily the man was not seriously injured.

 

[James K]

The coned breech (which was designed for easier feeding) is somewhat of a weakness, but with good cartridge cases is not a problem. The problem with the SHT 1903's was that if/when a cartridge case did let go, the sudden impact of that high pressure gas shattered the receiver, breaking it into pieces. We don't think of an invisible and sort of insubstantial thing like gas having an impact, but it does, and that impact is a very hard, fast blow, not a gentle push. And it is that kind of blow, whether delivered by a hammer or by fast moving gas, that breaks those brittle old receivers.

Make no mistake; ANY receiver on a rifle like that which has experienced case head failure would have been damaged, almost certainly beyond repair. The sidewalls would have been bent outward, the magazine bulged and the floor plate blown out, but a good receiver would have held together. The brittle ones didn't.

Jim

 

[F. Guffey]

The M1903 has a major design flaw; the coned breech. The rear of the cartridge case is unsupported for about 1/10 inch. A cartridge head separation in a coned breech rifle is often a catastrophic event. Couple the coned breech with a soft cartridge case and you have the recipe for a kaboom. The original M70 Winchester and the M1917 Enfield rifle also have coned breeches.

The coned breach: Before I knew scary music followed 'coned breach' I measured case head protrusion and case head support on the M1917 and the 03. 03A3 etc.. I found less case head protrusion and more case head support on the cone face barrels than on other receivers. Case head protrusion on the M1917 and the 03 is .090" when measured from the bottom of the extractor groove. that is .020"+ more support than most Mausers.

More support, the P14 chambered to 303 British has a rim that protrudes and most of the case is supported by the chamber, a few of the P14 went through for repairs, some of the barrels had a gas escape cut in the face of the barrel in front of the rim and over the top of the chamber. then to really cut down on the possibility of hot, high pressure metal cutting gas escaping the British drilled a hold through the chamber in front of the receiver. that one drilled hole through the chamber dropped the price down from $400.00 to$50.00.

F. Guffey

 

[F. Guffey]

then there is the case, as I have said before in the form of a question "Who measures?" It is rat after that the snarky(s) get snarky. Military case heads have a case head thickens of .200", R-P commercial 30/06 case head thickness is .260" (there goes the theory surplus is thicker than commercial).

rather than talk about it I suggest someone purchase tools to remove a barrel, measure from the case head forward and from the front receiver ring back to the bolt face. With a military case and 1/10"? (.100") protrusion the case head is supported by .100".

Meaning? It takes a lot of pressure to blow a plug out of the side of the case at the extractor cut. Then there is case head separation, and for me a boring story always starts with "Hatcherr said ...."

F. Guffey

 

[thallub]

rather than talk about it I suggest someone purchase tools to remove a barrel, measure from the case head forward and from the front receiver ring back to the bolt face. With a military case and 1/10"? (.100") protrusion the case head is supported by .100".

Yep, i've got the spiffy tools and have done that stuff, many times.

Meaning? It takes a lot of pressure to blow a plug out of the side of the case at the extractor cut.

That is true with a properly made new cartridge case. With a soft case or a case that has been reloaded numerous times maybe not so much.

 

[F. Guffey]

AND THEN?

There is crushing the case head. When the case head is crushed the thickness of the case head from the bottom of the cup above the web and case head is reduced.

F. Guffey