|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 1, 2010, 08:24 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
|
I have been paying attention to this thread and it has been quite an education. Years back, I left them alone because of the bad reputation they had, and almost no one brought any in. With all the info that was posted, it would seem that the story is much more complicated than it appears. I do see them in a different light now, but am still leaning in cautions direction. A lot of rumor and conjecture was laid to rest for me on this thread, but there is always that chance some of those studies were correct.
|
April 1, 2010, 09:02 PM | #52 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Posts: 151
|
National Brass and Copper Tube Company was one of the companies that made the soft head ammo that would probably fail in any cone breeched rifle.
Cone breech rifles need good cases, hence my unanswered challenge for anyone to produce a properly headspaced low number 03 that has "blown up" with modern (post WW II) ammo. Another of my unsafe low # guns that has seen 100s of rounds of post WW II ball and still is intact. |
April 2, 2010, 06:06 AM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
It is probably the primary offender. It is significant that it was folks from this company who first "discovered" the brittle receiver problem when their M1903 rifle blew up. Somewhere in my ammo collection, scattered over three states, I have about 200 rounds of ammo made by National Brass....during 1917-18. According to my less than scientific file test; those cases are much softer than other .30 caliber cases made during WWI. Brandy, I read your posts with interest. Rifles blew up for a variety of reasons. Cleaning patches in the bores, failure to remove the grease or cosmoline from the bore, soft cartridge cases, etc. The Army came had a .30caliber guard round. That round had a low muzzle velocity and a bullet with a rounded ogive. There is an instance where a soldier claimed that his M1903blew up when firing a guard round. Lots of guns blew up during WWI and WWII. Machine guns blew up with regularity because of the failure to set headspace and timing. The M2 .50 caliber machine gun still blows up for the same reason. |
|
April 2, 2010, 03:59 PM | #54 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,013
|
Nothing yet said indicates there were no early '03's with improper heat treatment bad enough to contribute to failures. This issue is clearly confused by having multiple variables involved in each failure. For example, did the copper tubing company make some soft brass that contributed to the problem? It sounds like they did. Does that mean it was solely responsible for the failure? It doesn't prove that, either. After all, their second gun never blew up that I see any mention of. Were the brass tubing company engineers blowing smoke about the out-of-spec case hardening and "burned" steel? Hatcher didn't think so, but admitted he wasn't a metallurgist, so that's fuzzy.
And all the above begs the question of safety upon bursting. Clearly, from hammer shattering alone, low SN '03 receivers, even when properly heat treated, are more brittle and less tough than either the later double-heat treated steel or nickel steel receivers. That may not make or break someone's decision to own and use one, but it certainly can't be called a desirable feature. Even if when a burst is caused by egregious abuse of a properly heat treated low number gun, the fragments from that burst present a greater hazard than the burst of a more malleable late receiver. I don't want to exaggerate the danger, because it is not great. But given the logic axiom that even one exception disproves a rule, neither should it be dismissed as an entirely 100% baseless rumor. I think Dr. Lyons does a good job of putting the risk in perspective without just entirely blowing off the heat treating issue: Quote:
There is an old corollary to Murphy's Law that says wherever more than one mathematician is involved in an erroneous calculation, the fault will never be placed. That certainly applies to multiple variables.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle |
|
April 2, 2010, 05:58 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: Homes in Brooklyn, NY and in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 5,472
|
best discussion
Very good. This has been the best forum discussion about low-numbers that I have read through - ever. Compliments to y'all.
Pete
__________________
“Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games.” Ernest Hemingway ... NRA Life Member |
April 3, 2010, 01:47 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Dr. Lyons used Hatcher's Notebook for his analysis. That database is incomplete. Some of the pictures I posted earlier are accidents dated after Hatcher's database ends.
His analysis is invalid as it does not account every low number that ever shattered. It would have been interesting to find given that a receiver shattered, what was the probability that it was a low number receiver. I will bet that number is closer to 99%. Dr. Lyon is just another opinionated person justifying his use of low number receivers. He just uses statisitics. Any one can do the same, but do it for yourself. Don't try to convince the simple or weak minded that it is safe, unless you want the responsibility that comes when someone hurts themself based on your bad advice. |
April 3, 2010, 03:30 PM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,013
|
Maybe I confused you as to my position? I'm on the side that avoids those low numbers for shooting because of the shattering failure mode, and am not in agreement that bad heat treatment is a total fraud that should be dismissed out of hand. Lyons isn't, either. But I do concede the vast majority of those early rifles survived actual service. The matter of risk is open to revision with more complete data, and I expect Lyons's mention that all the blown guns came from specific early years of manufacture supports your contention that an analysis of probability of bursting by year would put practically all such instances in the low serial number range.
Lyons used Hatcher, but not exclusively or blindly. He had four sources in his biography and he points to some of Hatcher's errors in his notes: Quote:
As I suggested, shooting a low number Springfield includes an element of playing Russian Roulette, but doing it with one cartridge in a giant revolver that has a cylinder capacity on the order of maybe 70,000-140,000 rounds. I realize that's based on surmise, but if you inflate Lyons's number too much it becomes increasingly improbable that the problem went unremarked, unnoticed and unreported.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle |
|
April 3, 2010, 07:50 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: Homes in Brooklyn, NY and in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 5,472
|
think
Slamfire: You pretty obviously have strong feelings about this issue. Those feelings certainly clouded your last post.
Normally, you make a clear argument - the shattered receivers were impressive. But.... Quote:
The "bet" about the 99% probablility - you are, in essence, making up a statistic. The opinionated person, etc. - argumentum ad hominem - just because he is opinionated does mean that he is wrong. Just because he uses statistics does not mean he is wrong. It is also improper to suggest that there is a vast group of people (just another opinionated person, after all) who try to justify untenable positions. (Y'know...we all fit into that "opinionated person" suit - you surely do and you just made up a statistic to go with it. Easy to do, ain't it?) The extension that a person is "simple and weak minded" if they are accepting of the use of Lo#Spflds is unwarranted, as is the suggestion that the only persons who could be approached would be "simple or weak minded". The last assumption - that someone will hurt themself is also unwarranted. A number of these things are common enough problems in emotional arguments, common enough that they have names but i was too lazy to look them up. What we need here is clear thinking. Pete
__________________
“Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games.” Ernest Hemingway ... NRA Life Member Last edited by darkgael; April 3, 2010 at 07:57 PM. |
|
April 3, 2010, 10:45 PM | #59 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Posts: 151
|
Actually my challenge was....
That I would pay $1000.00 to anyone who could produce a correctly headspaced low number 03' that "blew up" with modern ammo.
I ran that for about 15 years when I was a really serious 03 collector (Pre WW One only) and never got a taker. Just another gunwriter myth that gets repeated w/o ever being tested. "Microgrooves won't shoot cast bullets." "Semi-auto rifles jam" "Revolvers are more reliable than Semi-autos" "You need a 600 yard rifle to hunt Antelope" and so on. |
April 4, 2010, 02:09 PM | #60 |
Staff
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,013
|
I think your money is safe, but not necessarily because no fatally flawed heat treating was ever done. That may well be impossible to settle, as the number that have not already been shot enough to prove they don't suffer a fatal heat treating flaw is likely small. And, by definition, they are not being shot. If I owned an unused low number gun, unless it could be inspected non-destructively by x-ray or sonics, I would be sure to keep it intact and secure its collector value by not letting anyone shoot it.
For modern purchasers, I think the issue is the failure mode for low number guns with bad headspace or that get defective brass or that suffer an overload or other abuse. That failure seems likely to pose more hazard than a similar failure in a late number gun due to greater fragmentation. I realize that's speculative on my part, but I doubt anyone will volunteer the resources needed to prove it one way or the other? It's just that it would stop me from buying or recommending a low number Springfield to use in Vintage Military Rifle matches or for sporterizing. But that's a personal decision.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle Last edited by Unclenick; April 4, 2010 at 06:14 PM. |
April 4, 2010, 08:31 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
|
Then there were all the great chambers developed that were deemed a marginal success over the parent cartridge, for some 40+ years would pass before suitable powders were developed that allowed the chambers to catch up with their potential, with longer barrels and new powders some are still getting better. The same powders help LNs today. The difference between slow burning and fast burning powder is sudden shock.
Not the same but 308 W rounds have been fired, by the best, in the 30/06, the shoulder is erased and is never formed, the 30/06 shoulder is forward of the 308 W .388, again until the case fills the chambrer pressure can not be an issue. As to head space and blowing up, Hatcher moved the shoulder forward on a 30/06 .125 thousands, he fired standard ammo in the modified 30/06 +.125 chamber thinking the rifle would blow up, instead he formed cases for the HATCHER MODIFIED 30/06 +.125 chamber, it is still being done today by mistake when an 8mm57 is fired in an 8mm06 chamber, instead of blowing the rifle, when the 8mm57 cases are extracted they come out as 8mm06 cases with very short necks, the difference between the Hatcher modified chamber and the 30/06 is the same as the difference between the 8/06 and 8mm57 within .003 thousands, Hatcher did not consider moving the shoulder forward .125 lowered the pressure (big time) when he fired 30/06 cases, so before the pressure gets serious the case must fill the chamber first. Head space is something we talk about, a lot, but do not understand. If Hatcher had full length sized his cases between firings and using the same cases over and over etc. with total disregard to head space yes, failure is built into that technique, for the most part all is forgiven for firing a new case in a rifle with head space, again I have an Eddystone with .016 thousands head, but I will spare you the details. I have close to 100 FA 58 National Match cases, I have been told and have read there was a problem created when Frankfort arsenal took a short cut, they eliminated, 1 process as a result the case heads were too soft and were sold to a scrap yard, before I knew about the possibility of a problem, I loaded and fired them, now the cases are retired with the BN cases. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|