1903 Spring and Modern Ammo

[Flouncer]

If shooting anything from the World War one era is a calculated risk I'm glad my Martini Enfield rifle originally built in the 1870s and modified to .303 in the early 1900s predates WW1. Looks like I am safe

No !! Just No. Laughing with you !!! Did you read Slamfire's post ? He never responded. I don't have the time or patience or knowledge he does to research other weapons. The Model 1898s made in Germany and Austria are not in the same shet pile as the Springfields. I have no way of recording chamber pressures but my 98' is loaded at similar velocities as others banging away with reallllllllllllly expensive "accurized remingtons" and "custom" receivers. In three different barrels and chamberings. My Model 96 Swede I keep low, but the 98 will shoot and last forever. I have no idea about the history of metallurgy in SMLE and Mosins, or their catastrophic failures.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Is this a problem ONLY with Springfield receivers/rifles or do the other manufacturers (Remington, etc) also have these issues?

[dustoff31]

Is this a problem ONLY with Springfield receivers/rifles or do the other manufacturers (Remington, etc) also have these issues?

Low serial number Springfield and Rock Island are the ones known to suffer from the receiver problem.

I'm not positive, but I believe SA and RIA were the only firms making 1903s at that time.

[Dago Red]

Springfields below listed numbers had heat treat issues. 98 mausers IIRC had issues because of just being case hardened (think thin surface hardness then soft core) which could result in lug setback. However due to the soft core and multiple safety features (bolt handle, double life in C ring and routes for escaping gases) they're the safest and best designed of all military bolt actions.

I don't know on the P14 but the 1917 enfield a were very stout, the "duckpond" relief cut in the rear bridge on the Winchester and Eddystone were to prevent warping in that area during heat treat. Remington had better process and that's why their bridge is smooth. There was a company that for a while was using the 1917 to build big bore hunting rifles.

Back to OP, first lots have been shot that were converted (again, above the serial numbers listed). I still regret selling my beautiful 308 Norma chambered rifle. My stepdad has one still. I'd even argue you're safer with factory ammo. I shoot Hornady superformance ammo in mine. (Mine has original barrel cut to 22", I've chronod their 165 lead free at 2950 IIRC). Factory ammo is all loaded to spec and designed for lowest common denominator. They'll pit warning on am,o that isn't safe for normal guns.

Unless you have some fancy testing stuff working a load up you don't know exactly what you pressures are. Not to bash loading, I hand loaded for all my hunting rifles, I'm just not sure I buy that it makes it safer than factory ammo.

My stepfather actually managed to shoot enough 06 mil surp ammo through his first 03 that he wore out the barrel. Never a problem.

Great information on all of this on accuratereloading forums.

Red

[Milsurp Collector]

However due to the soft core and multiple safety features (bolt handle, double life in C ring and routes for escaping gases) they [98 mausers] are the safest and best designed of all military bolt actions.

Actually, that title belongs to the Japanese Arisaka.

"When I was growing up, no one paid a bit of attention of World War II souvenir Arisakas. They could be had for $15 to $25 apiece and were considered utterly inferior to western arms. In fact, in the post-war period, anything made in Japan was considered cheap and inferior. The prevailing opinion was that the Japanese could copy anything but lacked originality and inventiveness. In the context of the Arisaka, that was about to change with the publication of P.O. Ackely's military action blow-up and metallurgy tests in the 1950s.

Well known graduate engineer and gunsmith, Parker O. Ackley decided to find out once and for all how strong our various military actions were. Rounding up an assortment of Springfield, Mauser, Enfield P-14 and No. 1 MkIII, Krag and Arisaka M38 and M99 actions, he barreled and chambered each action type for the .270 Ackley Magnum or .30-40 Ackley Improved cartridge.

Each action was then fired with a series of progressively hotter loads until the action was wrecked. The only action that survived these tests was the M38 Arisaka. The 1 3/16 inch bull barrels fitted to the M38 actions were spilt or blown off, but the actions remained serviceable and intact. The machined M99 Arisaka action proved to be the second strongest action of the group tested.

Shortly thereafter, the NRA reported testing a M38 in 6.5x50 caliber that had been rechambered for the .30-06 cartridge by its enterprising owner who indeed hunted with this insane combination. Just imagine firing a .308" diameter bullet down a .264" bore at the pressures generated by the .30-06 cartridge. The Arisaka digested the load without a hitch although the owner complained that the rifle kicked a lot!

Sending one of the M38 actions to a leading heat treating firm for analysis, Ackley received the following reports:

'The design of the receiver appears to be in some respects superior to the Springfield and Mauser from the standpoint of simplicity of machining and inletting. The receiver was not only carefully but even elaborately heat treated. Its heat treatment appears to be superior to the average Mauser, Springfield and Enfield.'

The results surprised everyone involved, and the Arisaka action earned a bit of well deserved respect....

The Arisakas are an intriguing lot. They were great battle rifles, and their design features were in many ways superior to those of our familiar Springfield and Mauser. Because of their variations and availability they are a fine collectible." - Holt Bodinson, GUNS MAGAZINE, May, 2004.

Detailed results of P.O. Ackley's tests here http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/Ackley.pdf

[slamfire1]

No !! Just No. Laughing with you !!! Did you read Slamfire's post ? He never responded. I don't have the time or patience or knowledge he does to research other weapons. The Model 1898s made in Germany and Austria are not in the same shet pile as the Springfields. I have no way of recording chamber pressures but my 98' is loaded at similar velocities as others banging away with reallllllllllllly expensive "accurized remingtons" and "custom" receivers. In three different barrels and chamberings. My Model 96 Swede I keep low, but the 98 will shoot and last forever. I have no idea about the history of metallurgy in SMLE and Mosins, or their catastrophic failures.

German technology was better than American, British, I assume also French, but it was all pre vacuum technology process controls. The shooting community is very unaware of the number of blow ups that occurred with M1888 rifles, all due to metallurgical inconsistency, and of problems with M98 rifles through the 1918. Luckily there are a few records that can be found if shooters just read books:


Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918 Dieter

The 8mm service round operated at 3000 atmospheres, which is 43, 371 pounds. M98 Mauser service rifles underwent a 2 round proof at 4,000 atm gas pressure, 1 atm = 14.6 psi, 4000 atm = 58, 784 psia. Page 103. Dieter found records that indicated that the bolt lugs broke on 1:1000 of GEW98 service rifles used by the Bavarian Army Corp!

This reflects the uncertainty of the metallurgy of the period.

Ludwig Olsen also provides a caution on old Mausers:

Rifle Magazine Issue 159 May 1995 Dear Editor pg 10

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/ri159partial.pdf

Ludwig Olsen :

Mauser 98 actions produced by Mauser and DWM were proofed with two loads that produced approximately 1000 atmosphere greater pressure than normal factory rounds. That procedure was in accordance with the 1891 German proof law. Proof pressure for the Mauser 98 in 7 X57 was 4,050 atmospheres (57, 591 psi). Pressure of the normal 7 X 57 factory load with 11.2 gram bullet was given in Mauser’s 1908 patent boot as 3,050 atmosphere, or 43, 371 pounds.

While many Mausers in the 1908 Brazilian category will likely endure pressures considerably in excess of the 4,050 atmospheres proof loads, there might be some setback of the receiver locking shoulder with such high pressures

I consider all pre 1920 actions, regardless of make or country, as inappropriate to conversion to 50,000 or 60,000 psia cartridges (assuming 30-06 case head). I have more data, which I have not typed, about the low pressures actually used in WW1 Nagant rifles. Pressures do get raised when metallurgy and process controls improve. I have much more confidence in actions the closer the build date is to WW2. However, owners are free to believe what they want, do what they want to do, with old rifles and actions.

[Flouncer]

Thank you Slamfire. Am I wrong in saying all the failures in the pics . . . .. . none of those are from firing a round or a result of pressure blowing the receiver ? Am I wrong in that the common failure is the ring, the threaded "receiver" of the barrel/chamber ?? The pics are startling, but do they even represent the failure mode ? - thanks

[slamfire1]

Thank you Slamfire. Am I wrong in saying all the failures in the pics . . . .. . none of those are from firing a round or a result of pressure blowing the receiver ? Am I wrong in that the common failure is the ring, the threaded "receiver" of the barrel/chamber ?? The pics are startling, but do they even represent the failure mode ? - thanks

The pictures that Milsurplus Collector put in his post are from a Rifle Magazine article. The author held those actions in his left hand and hit them with a rubber mallet in his right. That is why the right rails are shattered. The article was very interesting as it was about single heat treat receivers. If you notice, one of the receivers was a "high number". Same old plain carbon steels, who knows what was going on in the factory. It is my recollection that on the old Culver's site a poster claimed to have collected 128 reports of high number blow ups, but no more detail was provided.

The receiver that dropped on the floor shattered.

Springfield Armory has pictures of low number blowups. I copied a number, but have not transferred them from my Photobucket account to Imgur.

If the receiver seats peen, or set back, than the cartridge case head is going to blow. What happens after that more or less follows a pattern, but no blow up is exactly the same. Is there a typical car wreck? Usually the receiver ring will blow, but not always. Gas will vent down the action and straight into the shooters face and parts and pieces will fly around. Always wear shooting glasses firing these things. If the action goes you have a fragmentation device that is going off right in front of your face, if the chunks are large enough, they will go through your skull.

I am of the opinion that the nickel steel receivers should be the best of the bunch from a strength viewpoint, the M1903A3 receivers were of a modern (that is WW2) 8620 alloy which is a good steel for an action. I would prefer 4340 for its toughness.

The M1903 action is particularly bad in venting gas. In every point of departure from the M98 action, the designers made a less reliable, less safe, less maintainable action. The M1903 action breaks firing pins, firing pin collars, strikers. I had the firing pin break in one during a match, the collar held. Luckily the firing pin was not pressed out the bolt face through spring pressure. That happened to Jack O'Connor and as he closed the bolt on a live round, the firing pin was sticking out the bolt face. The round went off the bolt blew out and almost took off his thumb. He was lucky his face was not in line with the sights because the bolt would have gone through his fore head. The left bolt lug gets damaged and so does the bolt stop. The bedding goes quickly in wooden stocks because the action is not flat, it is curved. It is very common to find the M1903 action bowed in an older stock. There are virtually no shooter protection features in the action, unlike the Mauser M98 which I consider the best all around action. (though the Arisaka is up there) I recommend all read Stuart Ottensen's books on the Bolt Action to get a firm understanding of what the action designers were doing and the positive and negative features of the actions he reviews.

A comment about Ackley's blow up tests. They are interesting for entertainment value but since they are not instrumented, we don't know the pressures involved. They also reflect simplistic one dimensional attitudes. Is a blow up test the ultimate measure of an action? What about reliability of feed and extraction, what about shooter protection features, what about weight, what about ease of maintenance.? What about cost? You know the lugged Ross action was a failure because it could be assembled incorrectly and blow the bolt into the shooter's head. I am going to say that blow up tests are fun, but any action can be blown up given enough powder. All actions are designed around a standard cartridge and pressure. You exceed that pressure than you have exceeded the designers intent and the action will not give a normal service life. Soldiers were issued cartridges which the issuing militaries controlled the pressures and therefore were safe in the weapons they used. The weapons were not purchased based on the amount of powder it took to blow them up.

[Flouncer]

My father is a former research metalurgist. He may find this thread and info interesting. Thanks again for sharing

[slamfire1]

My father is a former research metalurgist. He may find this thread and info interesting. Thanks again for sharing

Ask if he has any good data on WW1 era steels. It is my opinion that the action designs were fine, that the problems were due to the materials and process controls.

[TRAP55]

It wasn't just the heat treat. Winchester had already solved the problem with nickle steel and their heat treat method, both introduce to the military for the M1917. The process was shared with Remington, and later Springfield.