Old receivers and steel quality

[Cosmoline]

Anyone know if there are any inhereng problems in using very old steel receivers for firearms? Specifically I'm thinking of two types of rifles--Finnish Mosin Nagants with anqtique receivers and sporterized Mausers, Springfields, etc. with old receivers fitted with new barrels.

I have an M-39 Mosin with a receiver dating to 1894. The metal appears strong and has no visible damage. But what I'm wondering is if this steel can be trusted. Does steel eventually fall apart over time, on its own? Any metellurgists around?

 

[Daniel T]

My Finn M39 has a receiver dated 1907, so I'm curious about this too.

 

[Joe Demko]

I don't know about steel "falling apart" but history shows that steel making was still a bit "iffy" in those days. Too much sulfur in the hull plates of the Titanic, improperly heat treated receivers on 1903 Springfields, etc.

 

[benEzra]

As far as the Titanic goes--as I understand it, the plate steel was unusually brittle at low temperatures, but it doesn't appear to have been a factor in the sinking. It appears that the rivets failed, not the hull plates, and probably would have failed even if they were low-sulfur due to the stresses involved.

Keep in mind that "overengineering" of the old milsurps may compensate for the fact that the steel then was not as strong as it is now, because there is more steel around the chamber of a Mosin than there is around that of most modern rifles. (I have a 1905 Mosin that I've never worried too much about.)

As far as the old Springfields that were improperly heat treated, that steel would have probably been considered substandard the day it was made, if people had realized the problem.

The cables of the Brooklyn Bridge are still holding . . .

 

[DMK]

Does steel eventually fall apart over time, on its own?

That's an interesting question. Does anybody have an educated answer to this?

Aside from rust and other corrosion, I'd suspect that the shock stresses and heating/cooling cycles could wear steel out, but I'd think that the effects would be neglidgable as long as they are kept withing the parameters that the rifle was oroginally designed for. Now shooting hot machine gun ammo in a Mosin-Nagant would probably be exceeding those design parameters.

 

[Jim K]

Other than the known problem of the single heat treat Model 1903 rifles, I know of no problems with the steel in rifles of the roughly 1880-1943 era. Some very late WWII German Mauser and Japanese Arisaka rifles may have been of inferior steel, but I have never seen one actually fail from that cause. Both rifles have ample "over design" to guard against failures.

(Workmanship is another story - I have seen a 1945 K.98k whose front bolt lugs did not bear, with the rifle locked only by the safety lug. Nevertheless, the owner had fired hundreds of rounds through it with no problem and the headspace was correct.)

Other rifles from that period are the well regarded Swedish Mausers, as well as such well made and solid guns as the Model 1909 Argentine Mausers, the Model 1891 Mausers, and the U.S. Model 1911 pistol. All have excellent reputations and it is worthy of note that the problems associated with 1911 type pistols nearly all involve clones made in the past 10 years, not the originals made in wartime.

Jim

Jim

 

[dfariswheel]

The only real "aging" problem with steel is Crystallization.
This means that the steel "work hardens" and becomes brittle.

This can happen from super extensive shooting, but because of the method of manufacture of the old actions this isn't likely.

Most of the old rifles were case hardened. This means the interior of the action is fairly soft, but VERY tough steel, with a very thin outer layer that's almost glass hard.
The tough inner steel takes the pressure and shock of firing, and the super hard outer layer prevents wear.

What ruins old military rifles is simple use, causing set-back of the locking lugs.

The problem is, if the case hardening isn't quite thick enough, or the rifle is fired A BUNCH, the locking lugs can actually be compressed slightly, causing too much head space.
This could be corrected by lapping the lugs, but this can break through the thin case hardened layer, which ruins the action.

Old rifles with uncertain metals or case hardening can also crack, and this was the problem with the early 1903 Springfield's.

As long as the action is in good condition, (Magnifluxed or X-rayed for cracks), and the lugs and other critical surfaces are OK, most actions are still good.

Steel doesn't just "go bad" from simple age.

 

[M2HMGHB]

my M39 reciever has been ground down, no date or any imperial russian markings.

 

[Art Eatman]

If steel is not bent, compressed or stretched beyond its Yield Point, it won't "crystallize and break". So said my Metallurgy prof, many moons ago.

All in all, the design of a receiver and bolt is more important than the usual quality of the steel. Thus the 40,000 psi limits in loading for such as the Krag and the early Mausers with a single-lug bolt. And the 94 Winchester, too, I guess.

As to the quality of the Mauser 98, those made in 1944 and 1945 were held to have some amount of deliberate sabotage insofar as machining of some of the parts. 1943 and earlier are considered to be okay.

Art

 

[DMK]

As to the quality of the Mauser 98, those made in 1944 and 1945 were held to have some amount of deliberate sabotage insofar as machining of some of the parts. 1943 and earlier are considered to be okay.

I was thinking that very thing as I read Jim's post above. I could just see a Jew or Gypsy working as a slave making rifles for the Nazis thinking "Hey, none of my people are going to ever fire this thing, why should I make it correctly".

 

[RayVet]

On Mosins and M39's manufacture date can be found on the underside of the tang. This date is usally left untouched, whareas the Russian crest and date on the upper part of the receiver (just rear of the barrel) is typically ground off on Finn reworks.

I have 1897 and 1904 M39's.. and a 1916 Swede..All fine rifles

 

[Bill Hook]

I believe the Finns retreated the receivers before use, or at leasted tested them, since mine have indents from hardness testing.

 

[WonderNine]

I often wonder about this myself. When did steel start to have lower sulfur content is what I've wondered. The 1930's? The 20's?

It's my understanding that the Titanic's steel had a high sulfur content because all steel did in those days....

 

[WonderNine]

I'm resurrecting this thread!

 

[Art Eatman]

While I remember bits and pieces from my metallurgy courses (some 40+ years ago), I'd not heard of the bit about sulfur. Whence cometh? Seems to me the heat of smelting would burn it off. And, wouldn't any Iron sulfide float off as slag?

Art

 

[Damnathius]

As to the quality of the Mauser 98, those made in 1944 and 1945 were held to have some amount of deliberate sabotage insofar as machining of some of the parts. 1943 and earlier are considered to be okay.

In actuality, the reason for the lower quality arms produced by Germany in late WWII was cost. As the resources dwindled for the Germans, the quality of the arms produced took a steep plunge. Also, the rising need to possibly arm the general populace as a last ditch defense in a rapid manner led to some very poorly made Mausers, many with very rough and crude stocks as well as MG42 barrels fitted to Mauser 98 recievers in a single shot arrangement.

Interestingly, some of the most higly prized collector Mausers are these late war "pieces o' cr*p", often going for $10,000+ when you can find them.

On the subject of strength, I would trust a German made (pre '43) '98 reciever, (large ring) as well as any Swedish made (small ring) Mauser reciever, as long as they haven't been horribly used and abused, to retain it's structural integrity. As mentioned previously, they are quite over-engineered, which is probably why the large ring Model 98 reciever is most widely used for sporting rifle conversions. As far as the '03 and MN recievers, I have no input as they have never been of interest to me for study.

Regards,

Dave

 

[mete]

It looks like you need a metallurgists comment . Metal is crystalline , it does not in time "crystallize"..... Titanic - The hull failed by multiple small fractures ( not the rivets) due to three factors making it brittle .A high brittle transition temperature (this is related to composition). Excessively large grain size. Excessive amount of inclusions.....There are many substandard wires in the Brooklyn Bridge cables but it still holds . When tha t bridge was built about 1 in 4 bridges collapsed .....Steel falling apart in time ? only one way I know of - at temperatures ,~ 1100 F, the metastable carbides can change to the stable form, graphite. over a long period..... guns can fail from fatigue failures as has been found by those who run a steady diet of too hot loads.... Mauser 98, they were already suffering from poor quality control in 1943, that's why I had mine reheat treated..... regarding sulphur - sulphur in high amounts can be detrimental however sulphur is often used ( manganese sulphide) in controlled amounts to create a free machining grade of steel. The reputation of "swedish steel" which goes back hundreds of years is that the iron ore in sweden has low amounts of sulphur and phosphorous.....Any more questions ??

 

[Damnathius]

I was under the impression that "Swedish Steel" referred to the high nickel content used in the production of the Swedish Mauser rifles.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms/embrittlement.htm <----- inder certain conditions, steel can go bad over time.

I'll see if i can get dad to comment on this thread.

 

[mete]

Except that that is not just the steel but the action of hydrogen on the steel. My own experiences with hydrogen embrittlement deal with electroplating. In stressed steel, hydrogen introduced from plating will migrate to the highest stressed areas and cause cracking.

 

[Cosmoline]

"Metastable carbides." I'm gonna have to use that in conversation today. Maybe I'll go to the coffee hut and ask for a latte low in metastable carbides.

Seriously, though, it sounds like the answer is yes, receiver steel can become weak if the firearm is fired too much with hot loads (as in an intense battle), but that the first sign of this is likely to be lug setback. My M-39 has near perfect headspace, butter smooth extraction, and has little pips from hardness testing. So I won't worry too much about it blowing up.

Thanks for the input!

 

[Gewehr98]

Since we're all well-versed on the rule against firing low-number 1903 Springfields

Specifically, those under serial number 800,000 at Springfield Armory and those under serial number 286,000 from Rock Island. While visiting my dad this last few weeks, he asked me about one of his special 1903's in the collection. He has what appears to be a Camp Perry or across-the-course match 1903, serial numbered in the low 400K range from Springfield Armory. It was obviously somebody's favorite target rifle, with a barrel date matching the 1910-vintage serial number, although the gun has been modified. It sports a C-stock, globe front target sight, and a Redfield target rear peep sight, mounted on the right side of the rear receiver ring. The rear sight mount sleeve on the barrel has been milled completely flat (so as not to interfere with the target sight picture), and the buttstock compartment has been filled with lead.

What makes me wonder about those brittle 1903 receivers is the fact that somebody drilled and tapped this particular low-number receiver. Since there was no such thing as tungsten carbide or titanium nitride twist drills way back when, a lot of those Springfields had to have the outer hard "skin" ground down a smidgen before drilling and tapping. Would the grinding, drilling, and tapping be enough of a stresser on the "brittle" 1903's to show the weakness of the poor heat treat?

Now, there are some folks a lot closer in age to the 1903's inception on this forum, anybody ever seen a 1903 at the matches that was configured this way? I'm of the opinion that this gun represented what was found in the hands of match shooters way back when, and as such, may have it's own historical significance.

My dad wants to find a replacement 1903 rear sight sleeve and sight assembly, a straight stock, and put the rifle back to it's issued configuration, save for the two small holes in the rear receiver ring (plug screws for that). I told him to hold off on that idea for now.

He says the gun shoots exceptionally well, even with M2 ball ammo as it comes straight from the DCM. I cringed when I heard that, he hadn't asked me about the serial number range of the rifle before he did it. He now knows gas-checked cast bullet loads are probably what he wants to feed this gun in the future.