Old Springfields Blowing Up

Calif Hunter · November 2, 2000, 01:03 PM

This question came up on another forum, but I'd like to see what our residents experts have to say. (I am not posting this to start a flame war or anything, just looking for good firsthand info.) The statement has been made many times and many places that old Springfields tend to "blow up". I remember reading an article in an old Gun Digest (maybe 1969?) that some of the earlier Springfields had problems becuase the heat treating was outsourced to civilian contractors when the arsenal could not handle the volume for WWI. These civilian contractors were inexperienced and the heat treatment was improperly done. This article stated that the problem receivers were destroyed by the arsenal after testing, and that the early receivers all withstood a 75,000 psi poison pill" while the newer actions withstood a 125,000 proofload. So my question is, does anyone have any first hand or direct experience with an old Springfield action blowing up or failing? My friend has a sporterized Springfield with a serial number under 500,000. My MK1 action has a number over 1 million. Both were made by the Springfield Arsenal. Thanks for your input!

------------------
Calif Hunter www.hunttalk.com

retpo · November 2, 2000, 01:38 PM

Hi Ca. Hunter, check out this site, http://oldguns.net/03RcvrFail/Index.html.
A medical doctor did some research on the 03 receiver failures and sheds some light on the ammo. mfg. during WWI that likely played a major role in receiver failures. Just a different point of view. Hope this helps. Bob

James K · November 2, 2000, 05:15 PM

There has been a fad recently to poopoo the idea that Model 1903 rifles ever had any problems other than bad ammunition. The site mentioned contains a bunch of statistics that basically say there is no problem.

Unfortunately, not more than 6 months ago I read of a blown receiver on one of these, and I personally broke a receiver with a single blow from a light hammer. When I mentioned this, one of the "no problems" group pointed out (correctly) that it did not happen during firing and "didn't count".
Maybe not to him; it made a believer out of me.

There were no contractors involved and the Model 1903 was never made by a contractor until 1941. The problems were at the two government factories, Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal. The culprit was improper heat treatment, due in part to the employment of inexperienced personnel in the WWI period. An undetermined number of rifles were left with very hard and brittle receivers.

Many (not all) of the blown rifles let go when poor wartime cartridge cases failed and let gas into the actions. This will harm any rifle, but a properly made rifle, including properly heat treated Model 1903's, will not blow apart.

Oddly, the problem is not high pressure in itself. The rifles were indeed proofed to 75,000 psi. The problems seem to have occurred when there is a sudden blow. One '03 came apart with the owner's "rat shooting" load of 9 grains of Bullseye and a round .30 ball. The gun had previously fired an unknown number of full power rounds.

Obviously, some, the majority, are seemingly OK. The Army never did a major recall, even after WWI; they simply replaced receivers and bolts when the older rifles came in for rebuild. In WWII, many of the older rifles were rebuilt in spite of the possibility of brittle receivers, and seem to have had no exceptional numbers of problems.

The cut-off numbers, at which the factories went to an improved double heat treatment were at 800,000 for Springfield Armory (the exact changeover number is not known, but all above that number are OK), and 285,507 for Rock Island.

HTH

Jim

weegee · November 2, 2000, 08:57 PM

Jim Keenan has covered the topic probably as thoroughly as you could possibly want--but if you're still interested in more info, try finding a copy of "Hatcher's Notebook" by Julian Hatcher. It has a section detailing many of the Springfield failures (up to the time of publication--late '50s I believe).

The book is still in print and can be found at quite a few libraries. Best, weegee.

Pampers · November 3, 2000, 08:51 AM

There was some problem with rifles, not just 03s, blowing up in the early 20s. The problem was with early jacket materials which "cold welded" themselves to the case. This, in effect, made a small bomb which exploded guns from what amounted to an obstructed bore.

You can always have a "low number" receiver checked for cracks, but, that having been said, I'd still stick with "high number" Springfields. A simular problem occured with P17 Enfields from the Eddystone Arsenal.

Yr. Obt. Svnt.

------------------
Fred J. Drumheller
NRA Life
NRA Golden Eagle

Art Eatman · November 3, 2000, 05:12 PM

The early Springfields had carbon steel receivers. Up until 1918, they were "low carbon steel, easily machined, soft but not brittle." Per Phil Sharpe.

Case hardening was used to get a good wearing surface for the bolt lugs. They were used through WW I. About 800,000 were made at Springfield; about 2,000 made at Rock Island Arsenal. The case hardening, if not done perfectly, made the receiver brittle. These rifles survived GI ammo, but since they could be shattered by a hammer blow, should not be used. The 6,500 pounds of force on the bolt could have the lugs acting as hammers against the slots in the receiver ring.

("How is case hardening done?" you ask. I'm glad you asked. Well, one way is to take the steel and heat it well into the red, maybe into the yellow, in a container of finely powdered carbon. Another method would be heating as above, and quenching in oil. The carbon creates a high-carbon steel layer some 0.003" to 0.005" thick. This outer layer is very hard; the metal underneath remains as before. If it's not done just right, however...)

For serial numbers above 800,000, modern heat-treating was used. Nickel-steel was used since early 1927, beginning with serial #1,275,767.

FWIW, Art

James K · November 3, 2000, 10:01 PM

Hi, guys,

Art is correct. Reportedly, the workmen at the factories (SA and RIA) judged the heat of the receivers and bolts in the furnace by color. They did not use pyrometers, even though they were available. Those workmen prided themselves on being able to judge just the right temperature by eyeball. But when production was speeded up and new workmen were hired, the whole system went haywire. For one thing, the furnaces had large windows behind them and the color looked different depending on the brightness of the day; the old timers compensated (or tried to) the new workers did not. When they goofed, the steel was burned and became brittle.

Then add the bum ammo and there were quite a few problems.

So you see, the whole thing was rather random. Some receivers and bolts (they got the same treatment) were OK; others made on a different day, or at a different time of day, were not. The army never found a non-destructive test for brittleness, so they simply said that all receivers made prior to the change in heat treatment (and the installation of pyrometers) were suspect. Today, there would be a massive recall of "low number" rifles, but in the less litigious society of the time the army settled for the much less costly route of replacing receivers and bolts in rebuilds.

As I said, during WWII, they even failed to do that, figuring that the slight risk was outweighed by getting a rifle on the front lines.

NOTE: The risk is slight. I have never claimed otherwise. But it is a risk, and it is one that need not be taken. There are plenty of '03 Springfields available of the double heat treated and nickel steel variety, and the low numbers can be safely left to collectors.

Jim

John Lawson · November 4, 2000, 03:52 AM

Hatcher mentions that one of the rifles that failed had apparently fired an 8mm Mauser round.
During the 1960's, some gun writers advocated shooting the early '03 rifles, but only after the original bolts had been replaced with later parts and headspace verified. IMHO, that only destroys any collector value of the rifle, while not adding much, if anything, to the safety side of the equasion.

JerryM · November 4, 2000, 12:19 PM

I can't add anything to the 03 replies. I would like to call attention to a similar situation which Pampers mentioned regarding the bullets welding to the case. I was assigned to Alaska from 1960 - 1964 (Left just a few weeks before the earthquake). One of the rifles I used there was a Sako Mag Mauser that I had rechambered to 300 Wby Mag. I had loaded a box or so of cartridges which i didn't fire and brought back to the states with me. I didn't ust the rifle until I hunted elk in about 1979. I took the rifle to the range and used the previously loaded cartridges. I got hard extraction and one blown primer. I pulled the bullets and checked the powder charges and they were correct. I had noticed that the bullets were very hard to pull and required me to take the seating die and move the bullets before I could pull them. I could hear them pop as they moved. After moving the bullets, thereby breaking the seal that had resulted from the corrosion of the bullet and the case, the rounds fired normally. Since then if I have old reloaded ammunition I take the seating die and tighten it just enough to move the bullet before I fire them. If they pop when moved I know what has happened. I haven't heard anyone mention this so thought I would throw it in as a heads up. Probably if the cases were cleaned well by tumbling there wouldn't be a prdoblem. Jerry

James K · November 4, 2000, 02:07 PM

The normal sequence in firing is that the gas from the first pressure build up expands the thin walls at the front of the case and then gets between the bullet and the case neck and expands the neck slightly. This leaves the bullet actually "floating" in gas before it moves. If anything prevents that neck expansion, high pressures will result.

Among the things that can prevent neck expansion are:

1. A case formed from a larger caliber or a case that has been trimmed, leaving a thicker neck than normal.
2. An oversize bullet for the chamber, though not necessarily for the bore.
3. Foreign matter on the case neck (e.g, grease).
4. Bullet frozen to case neck by corrosion or "soldering" due to metal incompatibility.
5. Wrong caliber cartridge.

Jim

November 2, 2000, 01:03 PM	#1
Calif Hunter Senior Member Join Date: May 10, 2000 Location: La Palma, CA, USA Posts: 165	This question came up on another forum, but I'd like to see what our residents experts have to say. (I am not posting this to start a flame war or anything, just looking for good firsthand info.) The statement has been made many times and many places that old Springfields tend to "blow up". I remember reading an article in an old Gun Digest (maybe 1969?) that some of the earlier Springfields had problems becuase the heat treating was outsourced to civilian contractors when the arsenal could not handle the volume for WWI. These civilian contractors were inexperienced and the heat treatment was improperly done. This article stated that the problem receivers were destroyed by the arsenal after testing, and that the early receivers all withstood a 75,000 psi poison pill" while the newer actions withstood a 125,000 proofload. So my question is, does anyone have any first hand or direct experience with an old Springfield action blowing up or failing? My friend has a sporterized Springfield with a serial number under 500,000. My MK1 action has a number over 1 million. Both were made by the Springfield Arsenal. Thanks for your input! ------------------ Calif Hunter www.hunttalk.com

November 2, 2000, 01:38 PM	#2
retpo Member Join Date: May 9, 2000 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 17	Hi Ca. Hunter, check out this site, http://oldguns.net/03RcvrFail/Index.html. A medical doctor did some research on the 03 receiver failures and sheds some light on the ammo. mfg. during WWI that likely played a major role in receiver failures. Just a different point of view. Hope this helps. Bob

November 2, 2000, 05:15 PM	#3
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	There has been a fad recently to poopoo the idea that Model 1903 rifles ever had any problems other than bad ammunition. The site mentioned contains a bunch of statistics that basically say there is no problem. Unfortunately, not more than 6 months ago I read of a blown receiver on one of these, and I personally broke a receiver with a single blow from a light hammer. When I mentioned this, one of the "no problems" group pointed out (correctly) that it did not happen during firing and "didn't count". Maybe not to him; it made a believer out of me. There were no contractors involved and the Model 1903 was never made by a contractor until 1941. The problems were at the two government factories, Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal. The culprit was improper heat treatment, due in part to the employment of inexperienced personnel in the WWI period. An undetermined number of rifles were left with very hard and brittle receivers. Many (not all) of the blown rifles let go when poor wartime cartridge cases failed and let gas into the actions. This will harm any rifle, but a properly made rifle, including properly heat treated Model 1903's, will not blow apart. Oddly, the problem is not high pressure in itself. The rifles were indeed proofed to 75,000 psi. The problems seem to have occurred when there is a sudden blow. One '03 came apart with the owner's "rat shooting" load of 9 grains of Bullseye and a round .30 ball. The gun had previously fired an unknown number of full power rounds. Obviously, some, the majority, are seemingly OK. The Army never did a major recall, even after WWI; they simply replaced receivers and bolts when the older rifles came in for rebuild. In WWII, many of the older rifles were rebuilt in spite of the possibility of brittle receivers, and seem to have had no exceptional numbers of problems. The cut-off numbers, at which the factories went to an improved double heat treatment were at 800,000 for Springfield Armory (the exact changeover number is not known, but all above that number are OK), and 285,507 for Rock Island. HTH Jim

November 2, 2000, 08:57 PM	#4
weegee Senior Member Join Date: November 24, 1999 Posts: 195	Jim Keenan has covered the topic probably as thoroughly as you could possibly want--but if you're still interested in more info, try finding a copy of "Hatcher's Notebook" by Julian Hatcher. It has a section detailing many of the Springfield failures (up to the time of publication--late '50s I believe). The book is still in print and can be found at quite a few libraries. Best, weegee.

November 3, 2000, 08:51 AM	#5
Pampers Senior Member Join Date: October 7, 2000 Location: In the Lost State of Franklin Posts: 482	There was some problem with rifles, not just 03s, blowing up in the early 20s. The problem was with early jacket materials which "cold welded" themselves to the case. This, in effect, made a small bomb which exploded guns from what amounted to an obstructed bore. You can always have a "low number" receiver checked for cracks, but, that having been said, I'd still stick with "high number" Springfields. A simular problem occured with P17 Enfields from the Eddystone Arsenal. Yr. Obt. Svnt. ------------------ Fred J. Drumheller NRA Life NRA Golden Eagle

November 3, 2000, 05:12 PM	#6
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	The early Springfields had carbon steel receivers. Up until 1918, they were "low carbon steel, easily machined, soft but not brittle." Per Phil Sharpe. Case hardening was used to get a good wearing surface for the bolt lugs. They were used through WW I. About 800,000 were made at Springfield; about 2,000 made at Rock Island Arsenal. The case hardening, if not done perfectly, made the receiver brittle. These rifles survived GI ammo, but since they could be shattered by a hammer blow, should not be used. The 6,500 pounds of force on the bolt could have the lugs acting as hammers against the slots in the receiver ring. ("How is case hardening done?" you ask. I'm glad you asked. Well, one way is to take the steel and heat it well into the red, maybe into the yellow, in a container of finely powdered carbon. Another method would be heating as above, and quenching in oil. The carbon creates a high-carbon steel layer some 0.003" to 0.005" thick. This outer layer is very hard; the metal underneath remains as before. If it's not done just right, however...) For serial numbers above 800,000, modern heat-treating was used. Nickel-steel was used since early 1927, beginning with serial #1,275,767. FWIW, Art

November 3, 2000, 10:01 PM	#7
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Hi, guys, Art is correct. Reportedly, the workmen at the factories (SA and RIA) judged the heat of the receivers and bolts in the furnace by color. They did not use pyrometers, even though they were available. Those workmen prided themselves on being able to judge just the right temperature by eyeball. But when production was speeded up and new workmen were hired, the whole system went haywire. For one thing, the furnaces had large windows behind them and the color looked different depending on the brightness of the day; the old timers compensated (or tried to) the new workers did not. When they goofed, the steel was burned and became brittle. Then add the bum ammo and there were quite a few problems. So you see, the whole thing was rather random. Some receivers and bolts (they got the same treatment) were OK; others made on a different day, or at a different time of day, were not. The army never found a non-destructive test for brittleness, so they simply said that all receivers made prior to the change in heat treatment (and the installation of pyrometers) were suspect. Today, there would be a massive recall of "low number" rifles, but in the less litigious society of the time the army settled for the much less costly route of replacing receivers and bolts in rebuilds. As I said, during WWII, they even failed to do that, figuring that the slight risk was outweighed by getting a rifle on the front lines. NOTE: The risk is slight. I have never claimed otherwise. But it is a risk, and it is one that need not be taken. There are plenty of '03 Springfields available of the double heat treated and nickel steel variety, and the low numbers can be safely left to collectors. Jim

November 4, 2000, 03:52 AM	#8
John Lawson Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 1999 Posts: 281	Hatcher mentions that one of the rifles that failed had apparently fired an 8mm Mauser round. During the 1960's, some gun writers advocated shooting the early '03 rifles, but only after the original bolts had been replaced with later parts and headspace verified. IMHO, that only destroys any collector value of the rifle, while not adding much, if anything, to the safety side of the equasion.

November 4, 2000, 12:19 PM	#9
JerryM Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 1999 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,889	I can't add anything to the 03 replies. I would like to call attention to a similar situation which Pampers mentioned regarding the bullets welding to the case. I was assigned to Alaska from 1960 - 1964 (Left just a few weeks before the earthquake). One of the rifles I used there was a Sako Mag Mauser that I had rechambered to 300 Wby Mag. I had loaded a box or so of cartridges which i didn't fire and brought back to the states with me. I didn't ust the rifle until I hunted elk in about 1979. I took the rifle to the range and used the previously loaded cartridges. I got hard extraction and one blown primer. I pulled the bullets and checked the powder charges and they were correct. I had noticed that the bullets were very hard to pull and required me to take the seating die and move the bullets before I could pull them. I could hear them pop as they moved. After moving the bullets, thereby breaking the seal that had resulted from the corrosion of the bullet and the case, the rounds fired normally. Since then if I have old reloaded ammunition I take the seating die and tighten it just enough to move the bullet before I fire them. If they pop when moved I know what has happened. I haven't heard anyone mention this so thought I would throw it in as a heads up. Probably if the cases were cleaned well by tumbling there wouldn't be a prdoblem. Jerry

November 4, 2000, 02:07 PM	#10
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	The normal sequence in firing is that the gas from the first pressure build up expands the thin walls at the front of the case and then gets between the bullet and the case neck and expands the neck slightly. This leaves the bullet actually "floating" in gas before it moves. If anything prevents that neck expansion, high pressures will result. Among the things that can prevent neck expansion are: 1. A case formed from a larger caliber or a case that has been trimmed, leaving a thicker neck than normal. 2. An oversize bullet for the chamber, though not necessarily for the bore. 3. Foreign matter on the case neck (e.g, grease). 4. Bullet frozen to case neck by corrosion or "soldering" due to metal incompatibility. 5. Wrong caliber cartridge. Jim