Help with ID of old milsurps?

[Carl N. Brown]

The warning on the low-number Springfields is valid. Apparently some of the old hands doing heat treatment at the arsenal believed they could judge temperature by eye better than by instrument. Too many guns were made brittle. True, not all early '03s were heat treated wrong, but it would take a expert metallurgist to be certain that a given low-number Springfield was done right. Safest policy would be to look for a ser num above the range after the problem was recognized and fixed.

 

[someguy2800]

No your link if faulty and did not work....so you did not.

You are right I picked a fight, another poster said that under 1% of the 1903's had an issue, this is a number I have also read. I find that number to be within acceptable limits for something that is one hundred years old plus. Do you really think that these guns have not been used having been around the planet for that long....yes I have no facts that say this or that rifle has been shot X number of times....just simple common sense tells us that these things have been shot....and shot a few times....yes it is faith but common sense conclusion.....some of us can weigh what history has told us and think....yea I bet with CORRECTLY LOADED AMMO this gun is going to be safe to shoot. Some of us lack the mental ability to make that decision, so I suggest some people take every gun out to be proofed...you never know.

If you have the ability to post up a link that will actually work I would be happy to read it....you see I am open to change my mind where you seem set in your ways and unwilling to see that with 3 million of the things being made you chance of getting one of the 1% is really pretty darn small.....and if we take the "low number" whatever that is because sources do vary the number gets even smaller.....then how many of those are still around.

You seem to be happy making this mole hill into a mountain and that is where I get on my high horse, few things trip my trigger and this is one.

Tell me the answer to this question how many have blown up in the last 10-20-30-40 years that have been VERIFIED to be caused by a brittle receiver, and NO OTHER CAUSE.....then come back and tell me how many other rifles of the same age have had the same thing happen....I bet you are going to find more people that have blown up trapdoors with hot ammo then these things....and I don't know of any of those as well. And ammo that is marked trapdoor safe is on boxes just like grand safe....ammo changed over the years, and is a big factor.

I shoot old guns....I hate....and I use the word HATE most plastic fantastic modern guns....so shooting guns that are over 100 years old is something I really enjoy. I know what can and can't be done, I know how to roll my own, you about have to or go in the poor house shooting some of this odd stuff.

I drifted, home from surgery so I am likely all over the planet with this....but I hope I got my point across.....your chances of blowing up an "low number" springfield is right up there with winning the powerball tonight....sure it could happen but I would not tell your boss to FO on the way out the door tonight.

The point is if you put a round in say a Winchester model 70 that is overloaded, either through stupidity or accident, and it suffers a blown case, it’s not going to fragment into your arms and face like a hand grenade! You have to have a safety margin! If these rifles were safe they would not blow apart with an overloaded charge, they would vent the gas and possibly bend and deform. But they don’t, they are brittle like cast iron and they fracture instead of deforming. Steel fatigues every time it’s loaded so just because it’s fired 1000 times before is no guarantee of safety.

Not all of this is within our control. Certain powders degrade over time and pressures can spike as the nitroglycerin decays. Cases come with defects in the brass that can cause split cases. If you reload a piece of brass with case head speration may sneak past you. Some powders also display dangerous pressure changes at different temps. This is why you need to have an action that is ductile enough to contain a case failure for whatever reason. Same reason nobody jumps out an airplane with no reserve chute.

 

[boom boom]

You bring up some good points, toss in a Vetterli to your list. And if you are saying "last ditch" Japanese rifles I agree as well, along with some of the last stand german weapons.

The thing I would like to see is some documents on failures in WWII, I have seen very little data in this time frame. We know the marines early in the war used this rifle quite a bit....so it did see service in numbers.

Your last tragic story about the reloader, is a real shame, but I do not think it really has much to do with this specific case, hot loads can blow up anything, and personally have never really understood that. I load to put the hole where I want, some things I start in the middle, others I start at the low end...think krag or carcano that do not have the strongest actions....but this tragic event is caused by someone that made an error....and this can happen with factory ammo as well....we all know the stories of goofy loaded factory ammo...I got one box full of powder, a case with no primer....where the primer went is anyone guess

I agree with you on the Vetterli conversion and would only have such as a wallhanger. Right now, my collection more or less begins with the early smokeless era. Slowly restoring an old 71/84 Mauser and an early Lebel but neither for firing purposes.

Regarding WWII usage and problems, if any such systematic reports exist, it was probably classified as a "war secret." The U.S. would not even allow pictures of U.S. casualties until the mid point of the war. In addition, the scale of death and injuries were so vast that I doubt that any specific problems were mentioned in unit action reports as being caused by a faulty firearm--distinguishing between the effect of a shattered receiver from grenades, artillery shells, mortars, or even machine gun fire would be more for forensic scientists than harried 2lts or ncos. After WWII, the Springfield was going out of service anyway so the govt had no reason to revisit the issue.

From my imperfect understanding, the Springfields used by the Marines all had the Hatcher hole bored into the sidewall to help with gas from a ruptured cartridge which was a compound problem that the Springfield had with its coned breech funneling gas toward the user over the Mauser 98 design. I do know that other production problems and reports of defective manufacturing were swept under the rug during WWII due to morale and other reasons. If I ever get the time, the key files if any exist would be at the National Archives probably in MD but as the U.S. changed its command structure during the 1930's, not sure right now which office would hold those records.

The original event count models were designed to determine mechanical failure from continuous use. Think something like a bearing. They would test these bearings until destruction to determine the length of time to failure and by doing enough of these tests, a reasonable estimate of risk aka hazard could be calculated. Things that have stated averages such a 100000 MTBF mean time before failure on something like a hard drive is an example.

Kabooms have to use a statistical variant of event count models that focus on rare events that might or might not happen during the observance time. Since no one was testing these rifles until destruction, the data of kabooms due primarily to SHT receivers is based on a random sample of events that may or may not reflect the larger universe of SHT receivers (think of a election polling sample complicated by the relatively small number of reports of failure). Like polling, a non-response bias where an unknown number of kabooms due to the SHT treatment exists but there is no way to determine that due to missing data over the decades. Thus, the overall risk function/hazard ratio cannot be determined from statistical method employed.

On a practical note, the CMP won't allow such firearms to be used in competition and they have seen a lot more of SHT receivers brought back than I ever will. That to me indicates that it is a problem and if I was firing such on a range, even with reduced loads or cast bullet loads as some do, I would only do so with maximum protective gear and a complete absence of bystanders that could be hurt. The sad fact is that only via destructive testing could you determine whether a particular SHT 1903 is faulty.

I once bought a low numbered barrelled 1903 receiver primarily for the WWI era barrel to restore a high number receiver to fire. The markings on it were a bit confusing so I found out via Brophy's book that the receiver was used in a 1916 Hoffer Thompson .22 Gallery Rifle used for training prior to the m1922 with odd combo .22 firing pin and cartridge chamber within the cartridge itself along with an odd oversized chamber for it with the remainder a .22lr barrel. This was so that it could be fired with stripper clips and ejected using normal bolt action etc. These were made according to Brophy with rejected 1903 receivers that were out of spec in some way. Nevertheless, someone tapped the right side of the receiver for a Lyman type ap sight and put a post war 1919 Springfield .30-06 barrel on it and apparently from bore wear fired it. I had not really planned on using the receiver to fire anyway but someone did in the past and it did not blow up. At one point, I was going to rebarrel it for a current 1903 conversion to a .22LR Gallery Rifle but given the SHT treatment and the age of the barrel thought better of it as the receiver might shatter during the rebarreling process if it had faulty heat treatment.

The point is that from the outside, you could not tell whether or not the receiver would shatter during rebarrelling which does put stress on the receiver ring--this would depend on the depth of the carburizing of the steel--the only way to tell if it was a "bad receiver" is by destroying that receiver. Furthermore, the over carburizing could have occurred anywhere on the receiver depending on the workman's placement of the carbon source and the heat/cooling time employed. An over carburized receiver tail is not as big of a safety problem, if it is the receiver ring or lug recesses--it could be deadly but to all outside appearances appear to be the same. A few older Mausers also had the same issue as Springfields but are less well known (models 95 and 96 in particular). Generally, though, the earlier Mauser 98 actions usually suffer from being too soft rather than too hard which will cause problems but is far easier to observe. Personally, I love the glass hard smoothness of a SHT or even DHT 1903 receiver rather than the more sticky nickel steel action of later iterations. But, I would rather fire a nickel steel receiver in an old firearm than an ordinary carbon steel receiver for safety reasons due to metallurgical issues.

 

[fpgt72]

Worked for me. Downloaded the whole thing and spent couple hours last night with a great read.

It is a good read, I like this part.

Well I tried to cut and paste but that did not work too well.
Page 214 halfway down....he talks about how the failure with the rifle with 252 rounds in it was due to faulty ammo letting pressure into the rec. And a COMBINATION of bad ammo and faulty heat treating caused the failure on these two rifles.

He does go on to say that some receivers shatter when hit with a hammer...this is one line people love to quote....but some how all the info about soft cases, and other modified cases (in my words) replicate poor quality wartime ammo the rifles also had troubles. He made some comments about companies making ammo before that had no experience with it for the war effort and I do think he said the quality was poor. I tried to find this again but scanning for words in this pdf is pretty hard, the text is pretty low res.

He goes on to talk about how the case works in dealing with the pressure on all the military bolt rifles, 7.7 jap, 98k....and how the rimless ammo plays a part vs the rimmed ammo that was used on the Krag that came before. I came away thinking that if the Krag had been a rimless case we would have seen the same issues in that rifle.

My take away from reading the first 200 or so pages it that yes the receivers (I hate that I before E BS) can be brittle, but if you have good quality ammo I doubt you are going to have an issue. I would also bet that the quality of brass today, be it factory loaded or hand loaded is going to be pretty good....with today and the litigious society we live in that our current stuff is better then it was in 1947 when this was written.

I will read the rest of it, pretty good going....a little hard for me with the poor scan (i guess) of the text...but I will get through it.

I have not changed my mind (yet) on shooting an early 03, I do own one early version and while it does not get much use, I do shoot it with the same loads I use for my garand.....the part about pressure testing the garand was interesting to me....how he worked hard so that over pressure rounds would not hurt the person shooting the rifle....I have more respect for Mr. garand now then I did before if that is possible.

Me being only about 300 pages into this before I had to give my eyes a rest (my hats off to you that could read it in one sitting, my eyes started to hurt and water...but I was interested and did not want to stop)....anyway:

I would say anyone interested in older rifles, the part of pounding a 35 remington into a 7.7 (i think) was interesting....this is a must read.....

Does anyone know if a paper copy is still available....I found it on amazon but not sure....is this it

https://smile.amazon.com/Hatchers-N...=1539723102&sr=8-1&keywords=hatchers+notebook

 

[boom boom]

It is a good read, I like this part.

Well I tried to cut and paste but that did not work too well.
Page 214 halfway down....he talks about how the failure with the rifle with 252 rounds in it was due to faulty ammo letting pressure into the rec. And a COMBINATION of bad ammo and faulty heat treating caused the failure on these two rifles.

He does go on to say that some receivers shatter when hit with a hammer...this is one line people love to quote....but some how all the info about soft cases, and other modified cases (in my words) replicate poor quality wartime ammo the rifles also had troubles. He made some comments about companies making ammo before that had no experience with it for the war effort and I do think he said the quality was poor. I tried to find this again but scanning for words in this pdf is pretty hard, the text is pretty low res.

He goes on to talk about how the case works in dealing with the pressure on all the military bolt rifles, 7.7 jap, 98k....and how the rimless ammo plays a part vs the rimmed ammo that was used on the Krag that came before. I came away thinking that if the Krag had been a rimless case we would have seen the same issues in that rifle.

My take away from reading the first 200 or so pages it that yes the receivers (I hate that I before E BS) can be brittle, but if you have good quality ammo I doubt you are going to have an issue. I would also bet that the quality of brass today, be it factory loaded or hand loaded is going to be pretty good....with today and the litigious society we live in that our current stuff is better then it was in 1947 when this was written.

I will read the rest of it, pretty good going....a little hard for me with the poor scan (i guess) of the text...but I will get through it.

I have not changed my mind (yet) on shooting an early 03, I do own one early version and while it does not get much use, I do shoot it with the same loads I use for my garand.....the part about pressure testing the garand was interesting to me....how he worked hard so that over pressure rounds would not hurt the person shooting the rifle....I have more respect for Mr. garand now then I did before if that is possible.

Me being only about 300 pages into this before I had to give my eyes a rest (my hats off to you that could read it in one sitting, my eyes started to hurt and water...but I was interested and did not want to stop)....anyway:

I would say anyone interested in older rifles, the part of pounding a 35 remington into a 7.7 (i think) was interesting....this is a must read.....

Does anyone know if a paper copy is still available....I found it on amazon but not sure....is this it

https://smile.amazon.com/Hatchers-N...=1539723102&sr=8-1&keywords=hatchers+notebook

Yes it is. Hatcher, like P.O. Ackley, liked to blow up things. His brief discussion of 1917 rifles and headspace is also interesting. Col. Hatcher also wrote a book about the Garand that I've heard is decent.

The old time gunsmiths such as Howe, Chapel, or Sedgley don't discuss the problem much but then again many of them possessed the tools and mechanical knowledge to re heat treat a receiver (from some old anecdotes, apparently Sedgley made a few receivers too soft from doing so). They also pretty much treated old receivers that might be defective as trash or project opportunities. It was really about the 1950's and later that the problems with 1903's became more known outside of the Camp Perry folks and started being noted in gunsmithing books. Over the years, you see pictures on the various shooting forums about kabooms on places like cast boolits, that campfire site where a lot of gun writers hang out, active state hunting forums, etc.

I do believe that poor ammunition quality made the 1903 problem worse along with nickel fouling but part of the issue is the misconception that the SHT receivers are not strong--they are--but they are strong like glass and an unexpected concussion--via bad ammo, ill fitted bolt not bearing properly, debris in the chamber, a rough throat that causes a bullet to stick momentarily, or even dropping the rifle could cause it to shatter.

 

[fpgt72]

I saw his garand book as well and will order that one also....they are not expensive for books. And having more then a few "collector" books that are pretty expensive this is chump change, I just paid IIRC $70 for the great remington model 8. That is a very good book on that specific series (8,81) of rifles.

But again back to our argument....err debate....

Really by now, what is the likely risk with all that we know....what is the risk of a kaboom in this rifle vs. any other rifle in LIKE shape. This is a personal decision one must make....and I have made mine. I will continue to shoot mine, in my view you need to have a perfect storm, just the right things happen for this to go wrong.

In my view, and my understanding, the Hatcher Hole is for a bad case...allowing the venting of gas in the event of a ruptured case....well in the PDF we learn that a case issue can let gasses into the rec. or IIRC bolt issues can help here as well. So really everything needs to line up for a kaboom to happen. Now that all said what are the chances of all that lining up in the past....and the rifle going out of servcie...so yea you could have a brittle one that has not kaboomed yet....and still might kaboom on you.

But what are the chances....really....are any of the guns talked about above more likely to kaboom then an 03....yup.....but is an 03 more likely to kaboom over a krag, or any other early smokless rifle....again really I will admit yea I guess so, there is a chance, but that chance is so small over the other old stuff.

 

[boom boom]

.

Well said.
Krags did use the same SHT treatment that early 1903's got. The Krag design with a one lug bolt has one less than the Springfield (leaving aside the bolt handle in the case of the Krag and the emergency lug on the Springfield bolt). But while the Krag did suffer an epidemic of cracked bolts when new more powerful ammo was introduced, it never had the Govt studying kabooms such as the 1903 SHT.

I think that part of that is the pressures in the Krag cartridge are less, the barrel does not have the coned projection into the receiver which helps very little in feeding but great at funneling gas toward the user, the rimmed case seals the chamber, the Krag's case head is supported, and it did not have the issue of faulty war time ammo. Old SMLE's share many of the same characteristics but have the added protection of using nickel steel since about 1906 and have always had an escape path for hot gas released in the chamber from cartridge separation.

Mauser 98's had problems over the years but the soft core of the Mauser 98 and its superior gas handling in the case of case head separation gave it more resilience and resistance to kabooms--where fragmentation occurs. I also suspect that the locking ring in the Mauser 98 receiver gives the receiver crucial extra support. Under pressure events, Mausers tend to deform the lug recesses (lug setback) rather than shatter and hot gas is given all sorts of escape paths diverted from the user's delicate bits.

As you said, the risk for any given rifle is a compound probability problem involving ammo, damage to the firearm (including wear and tear), the design of the rifle, and manufacturing problems involved in making the rifle's parts. The SHT failures were related to systemic manufacturing problems at Springfield regarding temperature measurement for the heat treatment and forging. It was compounded, to some extent, by the coned breech and gas handling inferiority of the Springfield (which is why the Hatcher hole and better ammo may have reduced these events in WWII) versus the 98 Mauser which is a design issue. Then any additional problem--including the different pressure profile of using fast pistol type powders for light loads, could overcome the receiver's apparent strength. I also suspect, but do not know, that some 1903 receivers failed during the Hatcher hole drillings and were discarded but these are not considered in the list of known failures.

A similar claim was made on Eddystone made 1917 receivers of faulty heat treatment but instead now seems to be primarily attributed to Eddystone's use of air tools to tighten barrels and then rebarreling in WWII (because these rifle's barrels deteriorated during war reserve storage (perhaps due to corrosive primer aftereffects). The crack in the sidewall of the receiver ring where the barrels screw in is a tell which shows that the stress from the over torqued barrel when removed without a pressure relieving cut around the barrel caused it to crack upon barrel removal. Working gunsmiths have pretty much avoided the issue by cutting the barrel shoulder just before the receiver ring on these rifles and then removing the barrel pretty easily.

It is also little known but Midvale Steel Company took over management of the Eddystone plant from Remington in early 1918 which made the best steel in the U.S. at the time for ordnance purposes (it was known as the Krupp of America). Midvale was a boutique steel maker focusing on special steel alloys rather than bulk and given Midvale's experience in making steels and proper forging of such, I suspect that mfg. problems related to steel on these later Eddystones are nil.

 

[JONWILL]

You could somewhat restore the K98. Looks like a lacquer finish.
Don't use stripper. On the laminate stock it might cause separation.

Use lacquer thinner with a rag

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Well said.
Krags did use the same SHT treatment that early 1903's got. The Krag design with a one lug bolt has one less than the Springfield (leaving aside the bolt handle in the case of the Krag and the emergency lug on the Springfield bolt). But while the Krag did suffer an epidemic of cracked bolts when new more powerful ammo was introduced, it never had the Govt studying kabooms such as the 1903 SHT.

I think that part of that is the pressures in the Krag cartridge are less, the barrel does not have the coned projection into the receiver which helps very little in feeding but great at funneling gas toward the user, the rimmed case seals the chamber, the Krag's case head is supported, and it did not have the issue of faulty war time ammo. Old SMLE's share many of the same characteristics but have the added protection of using nickel steel since about 1906 and have always had an escape path for hot gas released in the chamber from cartridge separation.

Mauser 98's had problems over the years but the soft core of the Mauser 98 and its superior gas handling in the case of case head separation gave it more resilience and resistance to kabooms--where fragmentation occurs. I also suspect that the locking ring in the Mauser 98 receiver gives the receiver crucial extra support. Under pressure events, Mausers tend to deform the lug recesses (lug setback) rather than shatter and hot gas is given all sorts of escape paths diverted from the user's delicate bits.

As you said, the risk for any given rifle is a compound probability problem involving ammo, damage to the firearm (including wear and tear), the design of the rifle, and manufacturing problems involved in making the rifle's parts. The SHT failures were related to systemic manufacturing problems at Springfield regarding temperature measurement for the heat treatment and forging. It was compounded, to some extent, by the coned breech and gas handling inferiority of the Springfield (which is why the Hatcher hole and better ammo may have reduced these events in WWII) versus the 98 Mauser which is a design issue. Then any additional problem--including the different pressure profile of using fast pistol type powders for light loads, could overcome the receiver's apparent strength. I also suspect, but do not know, that some 1903 receivers failed during the Hatcher hole drillings and were discarded but these are not considered in the list of known failures.

A similar claim was made on Eddystone made 1917 receivers of faulty heat treatment but instead now seems to be primarily attributed to Eddystone's use of air tools to tighten barrels and then rebarreling in WWII (because these rifle's barrels deteriorated during war reserve storage (perhaps due to corrosive primer aftereffects). The crack in the sidewall of the receiver ring where the barrels screw in is a tell which shows that the stress from the over torqued barrel when removed without a pressure relieving cut around the barrel caused it to crack upon barrel removal. Working gunsmiths have pretty much avoided the issue by cutting the barrel shoulder just before the receiver ring on these rifles and then removing the barrel pretty easily.

It is also little known but Midvale Steel Company took over management of the Eddystone plant from Remington in early 1918 which made the best steel in the U.S. at the time for ordnance purposes (it was known as the Krupp of America). Midvale was a boutique steel maker focusing on special steel alloys rather than bulk and given Midvale's experience in making steels and proper forging of such, I suspect that mfg. problems related to steel on these later Eddystones are nil.

It was a fascinating tidbit in Hatcher's notes that he considered the '17 to be highly advanced and the best service rifle of WW1. Aside from its great bulk, I would agree with him, and as much as I enjoy playing with my Springfield's, if I HAD to fight in the AEF in WW1, I would want an Eddystone.

But........given the choice of any WW1 rifle, it would be the SMLE thanks to it's magazine capacity, short bolt throw, accuracy and general handiness.

 

[boom boom]

It was a fascinating tidbit in Hatcher's notes that he considered the '17 to be highly advanced and the best service rifle of WW1. Aside from its great bulk, I would agree with him, and as much as I enjoy playing with my Springfield's, if I HAD to fight in the AEF in WW1, I would want an Eddystone.

But........given the choice of any WW1 rifle, it would be the SMLE thanks to it's magazine capacity, short bolt throw, accuracy and general handiness.

I would agree. I also suspect that is why when the Brits could choose between their own P14 design and the SMLE, they decided to stick with the SMLE and tweak the design for the No. 4 with better sights, a better barrel, and cheaper/easier production. However, the Brits did use the P14 in WWI for a sniper rifle which is was well suited. I have both P14's and 1917's and they are fun, but heavy, rifles with very pleasant recoil impulses and good sights for old eyes. I have to resist adding to them or most other surplus rifles as I already have enough and restoring them is getting expensive. FWIW, I believe Numrich is now selling again 1917 repro stocks that will help for those wanting to fire these in competitions without harming an original cartouched stock. The military repro stock market is sadly diminished from a few years ago.

 

[MikeInOr]

I have come across many m1917 Enfields and they usually don't go for much... I paid $80 for mine about 25 years ago.

That m1917 Enfield is wearing it's full military uniform... which is VERY hard to find! I haven't even been able to find a military stock to give my M1917 proper clothes in the 25 years I have owned it. You should do pretty well if you ever decide to sell yours!

The M96 Sweed is by far my favorite shooter of the 4 rifles you have there! The Sweeds and the 6.5x55 cartridge are just a great pairing and make a magnificent weapon that is a pleasure to shoot!

 

[fpgt72]

I have come across many m1917 Enfields and they usually don't go for much... I paid $80 for mine about 25 years ago.

That m1917 Enfield is wearing it's full military uniform... which is VERY hard to find! I haven't even been able to find a military stock to give my M1917 proper clothes in the 25 years I have owned it. You should do pretty well if you ever decide to sell yours!

The M96 Sweed is by far my favorite shooter of the 4 rifles you have there! The Sweeds and the 6.5x55 cartridge are just a great pairing and make a magnificent weapon that is a pleasure to shoot!

Around here that is not the case, the most inexpensive one I have seen in north of $600...with a "good" one touching a grand.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I have come across many m1917 Enfields and they usually don't go for much... I paid $80 for mine about 25 years ago.

That m1917 Enfield is wearing it's full military uniform... which is VERY hard to find! I haven't even been able to find a military stock to give my M1917 proper clothes in the 25 years I have owned it. You should do pretty well if you ever decide to sell yours!

The M96 Sweed is by far my favorite shooter of the 4 rifles you have there! The Sweeds and the 6.5x55 cartridge are just a great pairing and make a magnificent weapon that is a pleasure to shoot!

Well, the stock, sights and hardware make all the difference with both the '03 and the '17.
Sportorized '17s can still be found all day long on Armslist for $300, but in "as issued" form, you won't find a decent one under $800 these days. With matching parts and good wood, its not unusual to see them at $12-1300.....

I paid a cool grand for my (all E) Eddystone a couple of years ago and don't feel bad about my deal at all.

 

[boom boom]

The only reason I have so many is that I restored mine before prices skyrocketed. Had health issues so could not go to the range, spent that range money on restorable milsurps rifles.

MikeinOR, you can still get a 1917 stock here and there. Place where I bought my last one was Ebay and paid a bit under two bills in the last two years. If you like firearm history, try to obtain a WWII 1917 Refurb stock out of Ogden Arsenal. There was a firearm's inspector name Elmer Keith (yes the famous gunwriter) and his inspection cartouche is OGEK in a box. I have one that was unfortunately chopped to make a poor sporter stock.

 

[AlexanderA]

Around here that is not the case, the most inexpensive one I have seen in north of $600...with a "good" one touching a grand.

In northern Virginia, sporterized (but restorable) M1917's go for about $400, while restored or original specimens are about double that. There's enough of a spread to make restoration economically feasible.

 

[fpgt72]

In northern Virginia, sporterized (but restorable) M1917's go for about $400, while restored or original specimens are about double that. There's enough of a spread to make restoration economically feasible.

That is an option, but I would rather have one original and unrestored....and yea I know they all have been through the rebuild somewhere along the line....but I think you understand my point.

With some things if you see "all matching" red flags go off, like all matching M1 carbines.....not real likely someone did not buy up all the parts to make it that way. In carbine land I will buy the receiver, and pay for that....what is inside has been around the block at least once....and likely was mis matched when it left the factory back in the 1940's

 

[tark]

Service ammunition of the time was some 10,000 psi less than commercial 30-06 ammo of today. Furthermore steel has a fatigue life. Such is the reason that machine guns and AR15s will eventually start breaking bolt lugs off, even with today’s vastly superior metallurgical science.

With the M-60 being a prime example of that.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Well said.
Krags did use the same SHT treatment that early 1903's got. The Krag design with a one lug bolt has one less than the Springfield (leaving aside the bolt handle in the case of the Krag and the emergency lug on the Springfield bolt). But while the Krag did suffer an epidemic of cracked bolts when new more powerful ammo was introduced, it never had the Govt studying kabooms such as the 1903 SHT.

I think that part of that is the pressures in the Krag cartridge are less, the barrel does not have the coned projection into the receiver which helps very little in feeding but great at funneling gas toward the user, the rimmed case seals the chamber, the Krag's case head is supported, and it did not have the issue of faulty war time ammo. Old SMLE's share many of the same characteristics but have the added protection of using nickel steel since about 1906 and have always had an escape path for hot gas released in the chamber from cartridge separation.

Mauser 98's had problems over the years but the soft core of the Mauser 98 and its superior gas handling in the case of case head separation gave it more resilience and resistance to kabooms--where fragmentation occurs. I also suspect that the locking ring in the Mauser 98 receiver gives the receiver crucial extra support. Under pressure events, Mausers tend to deform the lug recesses (lug setback) rather than shatter and hot gas is given all sorts of escape paths diverted from the user's delicate bits.

As you said, the risk for any given rifle is a compound probability problem involving ammo, damage to the firearm (including wear and tear), the design of the rifle, and manufacturing problems involved in making the rifle's parts. The SHT failures were related to systemic manufacturing problems at Springfield regarding temperature measurement for the heat treatment and forging. It was compounded, to some extent, by the coned breech and gas handling inferiority of the Springfield (which is why the Hatcher hole and better ammo may have reduced these events in WWII) versus the 98 Mauser which is a design issue. Then any additional problem--including the different pressure profile of using fast pistol type powders for light loads, could overcome the receiver's apparent strength. I also suspect, but do not know, that some 1903 receivers failed during the Hatcher hole drillings and were discarded but these are not considered in the list of known failures.

A similar claim was made on Eddystone made 1917 receivers of faulty heat treatment but instead now seems to be primarily attributed to Eddystone's use of air tools to tighten barrels and then rebarreling in WWII (because these rifle's barrels deteriorated during war reserve storage (perhaps due to corrosive primer aftereffects). The crack in the sidewall of the receiver ring where the barrels screw in is a tell which shows that the stress from the over torqued barrel when removed without a pressure relieving cut around the barrel caused it to crack upon barrel removal. Working gunsmiths have pretty much avoided the issue by cutting the barrel shoulder just before the receiver ring on these rifles and then removing the barrel pretty easily.

It is also little known but Midvale Steel Company took over management of the Eddystone plant from Remington in early 1918 which made the best steel in the U.S. at the time for ordnance purposes (it was known as the Krupp of America). Midvale was a boutique steel maker focusing on special steel alloys rather than bulk and given Midvale's experience in making steels and proper forging of such, I suspect that mfg. problems related to steel on these later Eddystones are nil.

So, I knew Midway offered .32acp/.30-06 cartridge adapters, but I thought to myself, why doesn't anybody make one for .30 carbine to give it a bit more oomph?

Turns out, this guy does, yay!
http://mcasportsace.com/

I'm going to order 5 and give my low-number Springer some range time!

 

[boom boom]

So, I knew Midway offered .32acp/.30-06 cartridge adapters, but I thought to myself, why doesn't anybody make one for .30 carbine to give it a bit more oomph?

Turns out, this guy does, yay!
http://mcasportsace.com/

I'm going to order 5 and give my low-number Springer some range time!

Yes, there was a recent THR thread where it was revealed that the guy had health problems. Apparently it is fixed now. There is another guy in Canada I believe that makes something similar--the Hammond Game Getter and that is also in that thread.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/chamber-adapter-mca-sports.835012/

One thing on the adapters--some have reported problems on extraction--not sure if Slamfire might comment on whether it might help to lightly oil the adapter for easier extraction.