The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Curios and Relics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 18, 2010, 06:10 AM   #26
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
I have never dealt with a WW1 or WW2 Mauser that did not have a low carbon steel receiver.Period.

+1

From a technical standpoint, Hatcher's notebook leaves a lot to be desired.

In de Haas's book on bolt action rifles he talks about the Mauser action that was dropped on the concrete floor of his shop-it broke in two.
thallub is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 09:24 AM   #27
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
I still don't see anything here to say how the guns were heat treated, and I'm not going to spend the money to buy a Hatcher's book.
It takes too long to play with the stupid formatting on this page so I am quitting. But here is a list of some of the material and heat treatment information on these 03 receivers.


Code:
From July-Aug 1928 issue Army Ordnance, “Heat Treatment and Finish of Small Arms at Springfield Armory”

		               Carbon	  Manganese  Max Phos Max Sulpher	Nickel	Component Use
Manganese Steel	WD1325	       .20-.30  1.0-1.30	.050	.050		       Receivers And Bolts
Nickel Steel	W.D. 2340	.35-.45	.50-.80	        .04	.050	  3.25-3.75	Receivers And Bolts
Manganese Steel	W.D. 1350	.45-.55	1.00-1.30	.050	.050		            Barrels
							


From Instructions to Bidders, and Specifications Governing the Manufacture and Inspection of the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903 1 July 1916

The physical qualities required in the annealed (not heat treated!)  state are as follows:

	Tensile Strength
Lbs per square inch	Elastic limit
lbs per square inch 	Elongation
Per cent	Contraction of area
Per cent	Component 
Use
Class A

(later called 
WD 1350)	110,000	75,000	20	45	Barrels
Class C

(later called
WD 1325)	75,000	50,000	25	50	Receivers 
And Bolts
					
					


From Book “Manufacture of the Model 1903 Springfield Service Rifle,  Wolfe Publishing Co. Inc, 1984


Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 1 to 800,000*
Material, Class C Steel
Treatment:  Carburize in bone at 1500 F for 4 hours, then quench in oil

Source:  Hatcher’s Notebook, Stackpole  Books.

Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 800,000 to 1,275,767
Material, Class C steel
Treatment:  Carburize in bone at 1450 F for 2.5 hours, then quench in oil
	Reheat at 1300 F in a salt bath for 5 minutes and quench in oil
	Draw at 350 F in an oil bath, and air cool. 
	Hardness Rockwell C33 to C44

Source:  July-Aug 1928 issue Army Ordnance, “Heat Treatment and Finish of Small Arms at Springfield Armory

Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 1,275,767
Material WD 2340
Treatment:  Heat to 1425-1450 for five minutes in a salt bath, oil quench
Temper at 700 F for one-half hour and air cool
Hardness Rockwell C-40 to C-50.

Source:  July-Aug 1928 issue Army Ordnance, “Heat Treatment and Finish of Small Arms at Springfield Armory


Receivers and bolts of SA, serial number 1,275,767
Material WD 2340
Treatment:  Heat to 1425-1450 for five minutes in a salt bath, oil quench
Temper at 700 F for one-half hour and air cool
Hardness Rockwell C-40 to
Slamfire is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 11:48 AM   #28
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
That sub 1600 number action may have been made with extreme care with right on heat treatment as production started up. Or it might be one of the errors in a trial and error startup process. I would not bet the price of a rifle and the risk of a kaBoom on it.

I remember reading that Dave LeGate, art director at Wolff publications, had a nice Springfield collection and sacrificed low number several actions. Enough broke when hit with a hammer or dropped on a concrete floor to really make you think twice about shooting one. Sure, they might go forever with a standard load of 4895 in good brass that did not apply sudden impact, but they will not handle a split case or blown casehead at all well.

Sorry, Gunplummer, but my copy of Hatcher likely went up in my house fire; or I would copy out the heat treatment process of the day, right down to the bone charcoal pack casehardening that was part of the manufacture in those days. Low number '03s were heat treated the same way as the Krag. The problems arising from the fact that the '03 operated at 25% higher chamber pressure with less casehead support, stronger Mauser style lockup notwithstanding.
Jim Watson is online now  
Old March 18, 2010, 12:55 PM   #29
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
Finally ...

The second number of the 1325 is the carbon content. If you say it was charcoal pack hardening process it, it had to be case hardened. I did color case years back and it was almost the same process. It had to be low carbon material to use this process because of the quenching media involved. 1325 is about right for understructure. It is crucial to obtain a certain heat range, it varies the degree of hardness. I don't remember getting anything too hard, but had things to soft. I believe that was either a bad batch of packing material I mixed, or I didn't let it soak long enough. Anyway, apparently it was the process of heat treating that was the problem not the steel used. You add carbon when you case harden and there is not enough in the steel listed to give you trouble. When they stole the design from Mauser, they should have kidnapped the heattreater also. Thanks for the information Mr. Watson.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 02:05 PM   #30
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
The Legend According to Hatcher was that they had experienced workers who thought they could judge the temperature of glowing steel by eye. It turned out that ambient light would affect the very best man's estimate by 300 degrees. The bad receivers were overhardened, "burnt" in the terminology of 1918. "Double heat treatment" of the same steel with pyrometers produced good stout actions. I wish I still had my book to quote in detail.

I am also of the opinion that we might have been better off to have just paid Mauser for a full license and issued 1898s in .30 x 2 1/4" (7.62x57 to fit the standard Mauser magazine with the established American bullet.)
Nobody else bothered with cocking knobs and magazine cutoffs by then, anyhow. The target shooters could still have had their ladder sights.
Jim Watson is online now  
Old March 18, 2010, 03:51 PM   #31
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
The Legend According to Hatcher was that they had experienced workers who thought they could judge the temperature of glowing steel by eye
.

Not during heat treat. During forging. The receivers were overheated during forging. Burnt steel cannot be heat treated to good steel. Along with the double heat treat process they must have installed better forging temperature controls.

If you scroll down in the window, the final heat treat was in a salt bath.

Also the nickle steel receivers were "single heat treated".
Slamfire is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 04:38 PM   #32
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 334
I have a friend who is a 1903 collector.

He told me to tell you DO NOT let anybody swindle you out of that receiver!!

PM me if it is still available, and I will get you in touch with him.

A barrel in that production range brought $500 in a recent auction.
artsmom is offline  
Old March 19, 2010, 09:29 AM   #33
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
I did miss that bottom info, I am new to computers. That really changes things. They were not trying to case harden the early receivers. They wanted to carberize it completely. Note the lack of carburization on the later receivers, and the carbon content of the steel used. It appears that no matter what this guy Hatcher said, they just didn't know how to match their heat treating skills to what they wanted heat treated. I believe the heat treater became the scapegoat for poor design and construction requirements. Bottom line: hang them on the wall, buy a 98 Mauser. Better yet, buy an Arisaka.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old March 19, 2010, 10:01 AM   #34
w_houle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,391
Looking at a whole bunch of different actions and this popped up
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=161336343
The auction is for a Springfield receiver in the 240k range: "It has NOT been modified by adding a "Hatcher Hole"."
What does that mean?
__________________
How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished?
w_houle is offline  
Old March 19, 2010, 01:51 PM   #35
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
I believe the heat treater became the scapegoat for poor design and construction requirements.
The whole theme of Hatcher's discourse is “those darned civilians”. It was those darned civilians mucking up our great rifle.

The military was in charge and they were passing the buck. Obviously the process flow, process oversight and process controls were inadequate. It had been inadequate for a very long time, since the beginning of production. And guess what, the military were incharge of everything but it turns out to be the civilians fault.

Kind of like blaming assembly line workers for poor sales of GM autos.

In Hatcher's Notebook, notice the buck passing game between Springfield Armory and the cartridge manufacturer. Obviously defective cartridges were letting go, causing brittle receivers to frag, but SA was pushing back, deigning they had a problem.

This event occurred early in Hatcher’s career, when he was a junior Officer. Junior people get to be involved in a hands on way and that is interesting. That does not mean there were not other production problems at SA, it was just that this one made it into print.

MG Hatcher ran the Ordnance Department during WWII, but the experiences of a top level manager just are not as interesting to write about. Even though they have more dollar value.

The Hatcher Hole is a gas vent drilled on the left side of the receiver. It was a band aid fix to provide for better gas venting on a design that never considered shooter protection from blown case heads or pierced primers.

Hatcher and Crossman totally ignored the design faults of the 03 because to acknowledge them would assign fault to the Army.

Rule #2: Minimize Scandal.
Slamfire is offline  
Old March 22, 2010, 06:10 AM   #36
darkgael
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: Homes in Brooklyn, NY and in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 5,472
added info

As an addendum: I didn't notice any reference to William Brophy's history of the 1903s.
He has a detailed description of the heat treat process in the section "Ordnance and the Model 1903".
Also - probably of no account in the general caution against use - there is a record in "Ordnance Potpurri", p.605 that receivers made between 1/1/ 1917 and 11/25/1919[sic] SA #632800 - 800,000 "must be scrapped". (800,000 was made Feb. 18,1918)'
I have a feeling that the 1918 date was left out and that the 1919 date is the date that the advisory was issued. I found it interesting that the production range for scrapping was far more limited than the advisory issued in 1929.
Pete

"The Springfield 1903 Rifles", William S. Brophy, Stackpole Books, 1985.
__________________
“Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games.” Ernest Hemingway ...
NRA Life Member
darkgael is offline  
Old March 22, 2010, 01:04 PM   #37
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
Because of the cone shaped breech of the 1903 Springfiled rifle, the rear of the cartridge case is unsupported for more than 1/8 inch. The 1917 Enfield, the Winchester model 54 and the pre-64 model 70 Winchester are also made this way. You don't want to have a case head separation when firing one of these guns.

I was present on a firing range when a man two benches away had a case head separate in his very nice Pre-64 Winchester model 70. The receiver was cracked, the floor plate blown out and the stock was splintered. Luckily the man was not seriously injured.


Quote:
"One thing made evident by these tests is the fact that the weakest feature of the modern military actions is the cartridge case itself. In the Springfield rifle the head of the cartridge cases projects out of the rear end of the chamber a distance of from 0.147 to 0.1485; in other words, there is a space of well over an eighth of an inch where the pressure is held in only by the brass." (See Hatcher p 205.)
thallub is offline  
Old March 24, 2010, 01:33 PM   #38
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Interesting article written by Hugh Douglas "About low number Springfields". From May-June 1985 Rifle Magazine.

http://www.fulton-armory.com/LNSpringfieldLowRes.pdf
Slamfire is offline  
Old March 27, 2010, 05:16 PM   #39
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
Slamfire:

Thanks for posting the excellent link. It is an interesting read.
thallub is offline  
Old March 28, 2010, 07:53 AM   #40
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
My math could be flawed for one and I have not seen everything. but I measure case head thickness, on military brass I have never measured a case that had a case head thickness less than .200, if what Hatcher says is true the case may have .0147 unsupported case, it also has .053 thousands case head support. I measure case head protrusion, I have never found a Springfield or Rock Island or Enfield (E, R or W) with more than .090 thousands protrusion from the bottom of the extractor cut, and if case protrusion is a concern, shoot commercial brass, R-P 30/06 case head thickness is .260+, meaning if there is a Springfield with .145 case head protrusion (or unsupported case) when R-P brass is used the case head will have .105 case head support.

And the Mauser? unsupported case head or protrusion is .110 plus or - very few.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old March 28, 2010, 08:02 AM   #41
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
after that it gets into yield pressure on a column of brass and a very good reason lube should not be used on the case when fired.

And the cupped/concave (coned) face of the 03 and M1917 barrels reminds me of a shaped charge.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old March 28, 2010, 08:38 AM   #42
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
may have .147 case head protrusion or unsupported case,

sorry about that,

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old March 28, 2010, 02:47 PM   #43
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
may have .147 case head protrusion or unsupported case,
Guffey Ole Boy: Did you remeasure the Enfield? I would be curious to know its case head protrusion.

None of these cone breech early actions, and that includes the M70 cone breech, do a darn thing to protect the shooter from gas release.

While the M98 does a lot.
Slamfire is offline  
Old March 28, 2010, 06:28 PM   #44
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,013
The double heat treating process takes advantage of the fact high carbon steel reaches the austenitic temperature needed for a hardening response to quenching at a lower temperature than lower carbon steel does. So, a carborized steel skin can be reheated to a lower temperature than is needed to quench harden its lower carbon base steel underneath, then quenched to harden the skin without hardening the base. Those are the two heat treatments (carborizing, then lower temperature heating and quenching to harden the skin) that make it "double" heat treating. It leaves the core malleable and the skin hard, which then bends rather than shatters.

The serial numbers are complicated. Rock Island switched to nickel steel at something just over SN 250,000 I think? Springfield switched to double heat treatment for awhile, then followed Rock Islands example going to nickel steel to avoid the complicated heat treating process at somewhere around 1,250,000? The double heat treating of the old steel started somewhere around 800,000, but where Rock Island apparently kept good records, Springfield had some deadspots in theirs and then also committed the error of having kept some of the old receivers aside that later got mixed in with double heat treated receivers, and that raised the serial number you need on a Springfield to something about 800,000. I've forgotten the number? It was less than 900,000, IIRC, but the uncertainty seems to be why people talk about avoiding numbers below 1,000,000. Since the serial number would have to be stamped before the steel was hardened, probably these received double heat treating, too, but the steel underneath was already "burnt" at forging.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old March 29, 2010, 08:07 AM   #45
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
Slam Fire, in the last year I have had 5 M1917s apart or going together, normally it is a receiver from here and a barrel from there, I received a barrel from Brian Ballard complete with sweat and fingerprints from the 3 smith that removed it, and the receiver survived, it was an Eddystone, protrusion was .090 thousands, had I used a head space gage the protrusion would have been .095. Bryan needed a 1894 Krag barrel, a year later he sent me the M1917 barrel. I purchased what was advertised as a good deal at the Big Town Gun show in Mesquite, TX, no need to magnaflux, the crack was visible (in the light) the barrel was good with .090 protrusion. I purchased 2 take off barrels from Lee's gun shop in Irving, TX, both had .090 thousands protrusion, one became a 308 Norma Mag.

Receivers waiting for barrels that had barrels rusted and or shot out, again within a few thousands, the protrusion was .090, every time I hear about excessive case head protrusion the reference is always associated with Hatcher and a quote from his book, Hatcher could have made gages that would measured case head protrusion on any rifle with a 30/06 case head, the gage could have measured from the bolt face to the face of the cone with a short guide for chambering, he could have made it adjustable with shims or stackers or he had could have made it in the form of a screw together 2 piece gage, then there is another way, it did not happen. As I have said, the chamber gets dark when the bolt closes.

The P14s that were rebuilt by the British had changes made to the flat barrel face that facilitated gas escape to the right side of the receiver to the 'Hatcher hole' drilled through the receiver and extractor (the two holes aligned). The 303 British head spaced on the rim (as you know), E, W and R had the British looking over their shoulder when the P14 was built, meaning builders of the P14 knew how critical case protrusion was, the help the British gave E, W, and R a lesson that was not lost when the M1917 was built.

There is no shortage of 03 take off barrels, most are not serviceable because of bore condition, for the most part this does not change case head protrusion, again .090 within a few thousands it the norm, again I have never found the .147 protrusion of the case from the chamber in an 03 or M1917.

It is never mentioned therefore I assume it is not done when setting a barrel up for head space, measuring from the case head down to the shoulder at the end of the threads on the barrel shank will determine the effect the barrel chamber has on head space, why the protrusion is not measured at this time escapes me. I do not covet Hatcher, if what he wrote is accurate he should have included a technique and or method for determining the measurement.

I do not believe there is an excuse for Springfield building 800,000 + rifles only to find there was/is a problem with some or all of them and if there was a problem with a series/lot, which series/lot, Hatcher could have been pointing to case head protrusion when he should have been pointing at Springfield, again Winchester/Browning did not release the Model 94 until 1895 because the rifle was not holding up to smokeless powder, Browning found/discovered nickel, most likely at the patent office, the rest is history, he added nickel to the barrel and the rifle became the 1894 released in 1895. 28 years later Springfield discovered the patent office? W, E and R used nickel in the P14. The Eddystone is still anyone guess.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old March 30, 2010, 10:46 AM   #46
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
'treatment process of the day, right down to the bone way as the Krag. The problems arising from the fact that the '03 operated at 25% higher chamber pressure with less casehead support, stronger Mauser style lockup notwithstanding"

No way to compare the 03 with the Mauser, with one exception, the CAR98 was a small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel meaning it was the same diameter as the small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel, the receiver ring was thinner, odly enough and a coiencedence? the 03 receiver is the same diameter as the small ring Mauser with a shank that is larger than the small ring barrel, the 03 receiver ring is thinner without an improvment in the metal, so it is not possable to compare the 03 to the Mauser 98, the 03 just does not have enough metal, again Winchester/Browning was just a short buggy ride down the freeway from Springfield, and Browning had no problem finding his way to the patent office, in those days the ride to Washington from Connecicut was not a short buggy ride, train ride yes, I suppose if he rode the train he could rent a buggy when he got there.

I was told the CAR98 was scary, more scary than the 03, I chambered one in 8mm06 and ran 20 rounds through it, I got it between being transformed into a sporter, seems the builder could not get the bands over the front sight and the bolt clocked out of sink and then quit, the barrel will fit most large ring Mausers and there are a lot of good chambering for the small ring Mauser with large shanks, but the scary part about the CAR98 was more about the way the trigger was set up than the thin front receiver ring. I visited a friend, master machenest/gunsmith, he was building 20 rifles, one did not make it through his certiquing, told me why he set one aside, after explaining his problem with the trigger, barrel and receiver and stock I told him to "watch this" the firing pin went forward without pulling the trigger, all the numbers matched and he knew the rifle was built with all the parts present in the pile

His problem he could not order 20 stocks, 20 triggers etc, to complete 20 rifles, the one CAR98 would require more time to fit, I should have made him a deal on a trade, but I guard against someone questioning my motives as to getting a good deal and trying to beat someone out of something.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old March 30, 2010, 11:24 AM   #47
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
If your Master Gunsmith thought the 98 was so scary, maybe he should not have been building twenty of them.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old March 30, 2010, 12:35 PM   #48
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
First he is not MY gunsmith, I am not that vain, he is 82 years old, I check on him often as does others to see if he is OK and to see if he needs help doing ANYTHING, will try again, the rifle was not a STANDARD 98, it was not AN ORIGINAL Mauser, it was a small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel, if the rifle is loaded and dropped on the butt of the stock it goes off, not by design but by the way it was designed, correcting the problem involves pinning the stock to block the trigger from going forward by welding the trigger guard opening in front of the trigger. I did not tell him "What you have to understand" or "What you are forgetting" or any number of responses I would consider rather rude. The receiver ring on that particular receiver is THIN! Call it risky or scary, I choose to barrel the Car98 in a low pressure chambering, and I test fired one with an 8mm06 chambering.

The rifles he was building were small ring Mausers chambered in 7mm57 and 6.5mm55, he had new barrels with small shanks.

And upon request I take my grand dauthter, she wants to visit his pet pit, a very massive dog.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old March 31, 2010, 11:31 PM   #49
Brandy
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Posts: 151
The low number myth continues. Having done a spreadsheet analysis of Hatcher's data, I think it's BS.
The actual primary causes of receiver failure were
- putting heavy Mobil Grease on the old 220 gr Cupro Nickle bullets to reduce fouling. Try that on your M-70 and see what happens
- wrong ammo, as 8x57
- soft headed cases from WCC cartridge company that failed in the cone breech design
- plugged bores

I have collected and shot 03s' for 50+ years and have yet to see one that has proper headspace fail with proper modern ammo.

IMO Hatcher was a God at the NRA, so they just keep repeating the story w/o ever testing his data.

Amazing how many "low number" guns were rebuilt and used in WW II. I once saw SA serial # 358 at a gunshow that, except for the rear sight, looked like an 03A3. God only knows how many barrels, stocks and bolts that old girl had worn out.

If anyone kept records like these on P-14s, SMLEs, GEWs, M-1s, M 70s etc. we'd all be scared to shoot one.

The 03' myth is almost as good as the Ross myth!

BTW, if that is a complete action and you wish to sell it, let me know.

Finally here is an R.F. Sedgley Springfield sporter in 9.3x62 (one of one) built on a rod bayonet action for a family member (German heritage) that shot hundreds of rounds of the hot German 9.3 ammo and still takes a min headspace gauge and, obviously, is intact.

Brandy is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 07:57 PM   #50
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,013
I don't think anyone's ever suggested that none of the low serial number guns can work or survive. Obviously most did, or the total number of failures would not have been as small as it was. It's just that there's a small element of Russian roulette to using one that many people don't want to participate in. The mere fact one can shatter the old receivers with a hammer is perfectly adequate evidence that the original heat treating process, even done correctly, was not the best way to go about making a safe rifle receiver. The double heat treated receivers of the same steel, and the later nickel steel receivers are both inherently more difficult to damage in a way that endangers the shooter (shattering).

However little you may think of Hatcher, unless you want to make him out to be an outright liar, it would not be correct to imply this was all somehow his idea. He reported the discovery was made by engineers at the National Brass and Copper Tube Company in 1917, when a gun they had for testing military ammunition blew up after only firing 252 rounds. It was their engineers who determined that the case hardening of the shattered receiver was not to specification and that the steel had been heated too far before quenching. Hatcher admits that he was just one year out of the Ordnance School of Technology at the time, and did not claim metallurgic expertise in the matter.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12951 seconds with 8 queries