doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Springfield receiver on Gunbroker.

Without trying to escalate this question into a war, I will have to say I disagree with the statement. The reason I say this is I saw the remains of a low number 1903 that the case did let go in. The reason I will never forget that is because I had a case let go in a pre-64 Model 70 and it fared worse than that particular 1903 did.

I will also add I'm sure I fared worse behind that Model 70 than I would have behind the 1903. The biggest reason for this is because of the position of the ejector groove on the Model 70's bolt versus the position of the one on the 1903 bolt.

Both pre 64 Winchesters and 03 Springfields have a cone shaped end of the barrel that leaves the case unsupported. In both cases you depend on the brass to hold the pressure. When the brass fails you have a massive gas leak that can take the action apart. The damage to either action can not be predicted as it may vary from no damage to complete failure.
Cheers,
laurie

First thing first, you should not load a Krag over the recommended loads in your loading manual. This was done to test a theory and has no relation to anything a sane person would do.

The pictured Krag was destroyed in one of my test that was a result of more than one person warning others about the single forward locking lug of the Krag and how weak they were. I built a box set up for remote firing the Krag. I fired a factory round first. I then fired three loads using three different powder using the maximum load listed in a modern loading manual. I then fired three cartridges loaded with a compressed load of three different type powders from the same manual. No problems at all. There were about six people watching this test and everyone was looking for it to blow so I loaded up a case with a LOT of Bullseye, pulled the string, what a report, but the darn rifle was still holding. I then used a 2x4 to beat the bolt open. I loaded the last case with a lot more Bullseye and the action failed. One interesting side note, the box was painted on the inside and even thought the pressure destroyed the box the paint was not even scratched.

OH! One more thing, the test were done AFTER I ground off the front locking lug from the bolt.

Regarding the LN 1903's,

1. If I understand the design of the 1903 correctly it was made to withstand cartridge failure. It's very clearly stated that the rifle must pass firing two each of the following defective cartridges,
A. Crossed filled on head to nearly the thickness of the metal.
B. Cut at intervals diagonally through the extractor groove.
C. With four longitudinally cuts the whole length of the cartridge shell from rim forward.

2. I do not believe that a factory or Armory 30-06 cartridge has enough pressure, on it's own, to destroy a properly built 1903 regardless of what year it was made.

i hope you shoot the 03 a lot
.

Bringing all this down to practical. I have a low number 03 in my shop right now. Friend of mine wants me to mount a scope. Years ago his Dad converted 03's as a hobby this one was passed along as a heirloom.

Rifle is nicely done in the "Weatherby" fashion. well stocked blued with a ported barrel. All over good workmanship. Had a Redfield Jr mount already installed, all I have to do is put the rings on and bore sight. My friend is not a shooter and will probably never use the Rifle.

Think I ought to give him a "low number" lecture ?

Boats

I believe it was P.O. Ackley who whacked a ln '03 across the reciever with the end of a screwdriver and had the reciever shatter. That is brittle and what does that tell us?

Some more:

Kutter, I think you already have answered your question: it is because Krags operate at much lower pressures the the .30-06. The danger is caused by the intersection of 19th century metallurgy with 20th century cartridge pressures.

It is really hard to discuss things like this (rifle safety) rationally and scientifically because the data is just not sufficient. Once we get away from the military use of the rifles, accidents are only occasionally reported, so who really knows what the failure rates are? What we are left with are stories, web postings or magazine articles and our own personal experiences. All that adds up to not much more than mythology.

With the that disclaimer, it is still apparent that the conventional wisdom about these actions changed dramatically at some point. Mr. Petrov's magazine quotes are undoubtedly accurate but they pre-date the official board which examined the matter in 1927. It is correct that the arsenals experimented with reworking these actions in the early 20's, but by early 1926 they had both decided that that approach would not work (see Hatcher's book published in 1947). I have no comment on the commercial reworks by Sedgley, I know nothing about them beyond what was advertised. Crossman writing in 1931 (The Book of the Springfield) says (in some pretty politically incorrect language) that only a fool could break a low number rifle. Twenty years later Roy Dunlap in a supplement added to that same book says: "The low-number (below 800,000) Springfields are close to oblivion, I hope. They just aren't safe with any cartridge in the 50,000 lb. pressure class, which takes in practically all modern bolt-action cartridges above the .22 Hornet class." Dunlap's over the top statement is on par with the internet quote Mr. Petrov has already given us. What could have caused this change? Could it have been Hatcher's book published in 1947? Were the 1927 board findings well known before that point? I don't know.

I have personally have never experienced a case failure or pressure event with a Springfield. I have only experienced two case body splits in my lifetime: one in a pre-64 model 70, and one in a High Wall with a Mann-Niedner firing pin. In both cases the split was lengthwise on the body (but not to the head) and the result was the same: minor gas leakage, a wisp of smoke, and no damage to me or the rifle.

I do agree with Mr. Petrov that the listed action is almost certainly a double heat treat one, even if it is quite close in number to the change point.

Well here goes! I have thought about this questions for years now and read all the arguments on both sides. It was only when I dealt with it on what I felt, was a common sense approach that I was able to resolve it for myself. I am almost 57 years old and grew up in a gun store and a hunting/shooting/reloading, crazy town in North Georgia in the 1960's. I have reasoned it this way for me and me alone:

1.) I have never known of anyone or even heard of anyone that had a Springfield "let go" and this was during the day when many shot compressed loads of 4895 in their 1903's, many of which were LN's. I now have a small ranch in Montana and the number of LN 03's still being shot there on a DAILY basis would astound you and when I talk to people about their LN's, they shake their heads and say..."never been a problem...so and so has one too and his shoots better than mine" I have never heard of a failure.

2.Since the handloading excesses of the 1960's I like to think handloaders have not only become more responsible, they have decreased in numbers due to superior factory ammo and still no catastrophic failure incidents, that I am aware of. If one had occurred, the news would spread quicker than the flu among old ladies at a church social.

3.Last but not least...ALL OF US ARE GOING TO HAVE BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO US! Some will get Alzheimer, die in an automobile wreck[my mother at age 78], shot in a robbery, choke on a piece of steak, and I bet some of you while reading this has and ol' cancer stick burning in the ashtray next to the computer. My point is, life is full of risk and we take them everyday; the biggest of which is getting dressed, leaving the house and cranking up the ol' Tin Lizzie! I know someone will say WHY take the risk of shooting a LN? Well if you collect original Military, I can see your point to a degree, however if you own a rifle it is natural to WANT TO SHOOT IT!!!!!!! If however you collect Pre war Custom 1903 Sporters such as Michael Petrov, IDARED ,myself et.al. then there is no other gun to shoot like it...just that one...LN or not!

I am not a particularly religious man even after serving two combat tours in Vietnam and being wounded, but when shooting my LN's I am reminded of a quote from THOMAS R.R. "STONEWALL" JACKSON.
When asked how he could be so unafraid in battle he replied...
"I feel as safe on the battlefield as I do in my own bed, as GOD has ordained the time of my death, if all men felt the same way...they would all be equally as brave"

Jerry

I don't think that really is the answer in that both the Krag and the low#'03 both share the same steel and heat treat methods in their receivers.
They both then would have the same dangerous tendency to do harm to the shooter if used.
The low#'03 is said to be totally unsafe with ANY load. DO NOT fire them is the word. With ANY ammunition, reduced load or otherwise.
The Krag rifle (same steel, same heat treat, assumed same brittle nature),,,,,no warnings,,,no 'do not fire with any loads'.
Reloading manuals sometimes cited the 'test rifle' used in working up loads as 'US Krag Rifle'.
Commercial ammunition boxes clearly labled 'for US Krag Rifle' well into the 20th Century and well into the era of the 'don't shoot low#'03s'.

One's a handgrenade with any ammo, the other,,just another rifle to be used w/normal loads. Both made with the same material.

Yes the 30-40 working pressures are lower than the 30-06. I realize that and stated so. But even at my guesstimate of a working range of 30Kpsi that seems to be OK for the Krag,,,,why would that not be acceptable in a low#'03 if the receiver is the same material/heat treat.

I'm beginning to believe it's more about the design than anything else,,that unsupported brass. Especially after seeing the blown Krag pics and reading how it was done.

There are lots of Euro sporters around that were case hardened by who-knows-who and by what extent the case actually penetrates.
No one seems too concerned about the safety of those oldies when sitting behind them and touching them off. We treat them with respect when it comes to the loads if we're smart and check them first to insure safety as far as possible. Many of theose have a large portion of their receiver ring gone in a dovetail cut for a claw mount. Again, design probably plays the greater role.