MM83: If a hardness test was done there would be some evidence of it. My take is that if its survived this long as well as a barrel change its ok. At issue with the process they used, not only was it a by eyeball thing, you could have varying degrees of that through the receiver.
If it was my gun I would be very sure to shoot new brass and if reloads, minimal shoulder bump back and no more than 5 cycles of it.
That said the Marines kept their RIA until Guadalcanal and then stole (er traded) for as many M1 as they could get and then they got issued them. Nothing like an M1 in the hands of someone who could shoot (and had to deal with Banzai charges)
Hopefully I can shed some light and not turn it into a debate.
The 1917s were made by a different process and material than the 1903 and were not heat treated (at least as the mfg point). 1903s were virtually hand made guns, all the work was done in house. Thats why the 1917 came into such major use, there was no way to get the 1903 up to speed for fast mfg. 1917s were already there (1914s) and just needed a bit of modification to 30-06.
Some did indeed have cracks, but that was a result of much latter barrel removal without having the right tools to do so (Bubba came to visit).
The reason Eddystone got the rap, there were over twice as many of those made as R or Ws, ergo, it was the most common one to see Sportorized and often upgraded. Lot of them, strong action as well as better metal.
What is funny is I had one that had been turned around again and had a different barrel put on by an gunsmith of some persuasion (pipe wrench marks on the barrel)
A lot were converted to magnums
Regardless, these guns have unsupported case heads and a gas escape as a result of a ruptured case can be really bad.
Ergo, the need to watch the brass and not push it.
The Model 70 I saw the Remanent of was a control feed , still blew up (hand loads were suspected but again why is ??? damage yes but blow up?)
Came across one other report of a Model 70, not sure what to make of that.
If it was my gun I would be very sure to shoot new brass and if reloads, minimal shoulder bump back and no more than 5 cycles of it.
That said the Marines kept their RIA until Guadalcanal and then stole (er traded) for as many M1 as they could get and then they got issued them. Nothing like an M1 in the hands of someone who could shoot (and had to deal with Banzai charges)
Hopefully I can shed some light and not turn it into a debate.
The 1917s were made by a different process and material than the 1903 and were not heat treated (at least as the mfg point). 1903s were virtually hand made guns, all the work was done in house. Thats why the 1917 came into such major use, there was no way to get the 1903 up to speed for fast mfg. 1917s were already there (1914s) and just needed a bit of modification to 30-06.
Some did indeed have cracks, but that was a result of much latter barrel removal without having the right tools to do so (Bubba came to visit).
The reason Eddystone got the rap, there were over twice as many of those made as R or Ws, ergo, it was the most common one to see Sportorized and often upgraded. Lot of them, strong action as well as better metal.
What is funny is I had one that had been turned around again and had a different barrel put on by an gunsmith of some persuasion (pipe wrench marks on the barrel)
A lot were converted to magnums
Regardless, these guns have unsupported case heads and a gas escape as a result of a ruptured case can be really bad.
Ergo, the need to watch the brass and not push it.
The Model 70 I saw the Remanent of was a control feed , still blew up (hand loads were suspected but again why is ??? damage yes but blow up?)
Came across one other report of a Model 70, not sure what to make of that.