doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com High vs. Low

I spent much of my time while driving 300 miles home from a match today debating whether to post this note or not. I decided I would in the interest of letting others make their own, better informed, decisions.

But before I tell you the details, go to pages 119 and 120 of Michael's first book and put a big red X through those three photos. They, and the photos of that same rifle buried deep in the archives of this forum, are all that will ever be seen of that rifle again.

I bought the rifle from Amoskeag when Petrov's collection went up for sale. Yesterday, it blew up. It is now in about 1.5 million pieces, two of which I'm still lugging around. That gun is (was) a "low" number Rock Island rifle. I shot it because I believed Michael when he said these rifles were safe and because he actually shot it, and posted photos of it at the range, with targets and a load recipe (4895 as I recall).

I loaded it with 28 gr of 5477 and a 311284 GC bullet (Lyman #2 or similar alloy). Lyman lists the pressure from this beginning load at 30,300 PSI. I had shot 100 rounds of that load through the gun last year and another 18 yesterday when it let go.

I checked the primers on the spent cases and they all looked normal. All of the remaining rounds (~80) weigh within a few grains of each other due to variance in brass and bullets.

56 grs of 5744 will fit in the case, but it fills it to the middle of the shoulder. I feel it is pretty unlikely that I would have failed to notice.

Every charge was weighed, dumped in a case, bullet seated and crimped before the next charge was measured. It is not absolutely impossible that I double charged one case, but I feel it is extremely unlikely.

I will not post pictures of the rifle because I hate what happens to these rifle-blow-up threads and how the picts fly around the internet, but it suffices to say, the barrel was absolutely intact, unbulged, and clear. The case, except for the head, was still in the chamber.

The action, however, was in gazillions of pieces, some of which were found 30 yds away. There was only one piece of the receiver ring that I noticed in the pile. Two holes were blown in the tin roof over the firing line, and I got a few pieces of shrapnel (brass mostly) in the face. Two pieces of unknown metal remain at the moment. The stock is kindling, though the carvings behind the grip are fine.

All that is salvageable from the rifle is the Lyman long-stem receiver sight, the butt and grip caps, and maybe the sling swivels.

I was wearing Randolph Edge shooting glasses. Dirt Cheap protection at $300. The frames are still fine. New lenses will be needed. Can't recommend them highly enough.

I'll be fine, but it did manage to ruin my match this weekend (17 hrs in ERs watching other people a hell of a lot worse off, will do that to your weekend), and I was shooting well (BPCR).

I encourage you to take a good look at Michael's picts of this rifle on the forum. They are, for some reason, hard to find, but google the site for Steve Meunier and you will find at least a few of them.

Make your own decisions guys, but now you have another datum.

Brent


PS. Ironically, Cabela's delivered 150 new Winchester cases to my door on Saturday. Any one interested in .30-06 brass and dies? I'm fresh out of that caliber. Doubt I'll ever go back.

Scary indeed.......Glad you made it through with your eyes and fingers.

Brent,
Thanks goodness your came through the ordeal with what may be considered a minimum of damages. Those glasses at $300 were a cheap investment considering your eyesight!

Richard

Brent,
Glad you are intact and basically all right. Sad to hear about the rifle. I remember it, as it one one on my list of possibles. I agree about low/high discussions. One thought crosses my mind, and I haven't messed with cast bullets for a few decades so this is a SWAG; could that charge create an effect similar to the mystery blowups caused by bullseye in 38 special loads? powder shifting and airspace combining to sometimes go boom? Just a thought.
Thaine

Brent: Found the color pics and Petrov's descriptive verbiage at Google. 1st Search: Steve Meunier gunmaker . Then on the results click - Images - ...the rifle is at the very Top Right on the pics. The photos are titled: An attribution I'd like to revisit.

HTH

H

Yes, that finds the studio photos. Thanks. It was a very handsome rifle.

There is at least one more photo of it in this forum though. It is a picture sitting on Michael's shooting bench and rest outside and there are some targets with it. It lists the load that he used in it. I've been looking for that photo again and I want to figure out how much pressure it would produce.

Here is the link you are looking for, I am glad you are ok,

meunier at the range

Yes that is it (on page 2). Michael's load looks like 44 grs of 4895 and a 150 gr jacketed bullet.

Brent glad to know you were not injured seriously.

Is it possible that your cast bullet cases had developed a headspace issue. Cast loads in rimless cases can push the shoulder of the case back as the firing pin moves the case forward in the chamber and the case has excessive headspace.
Cheers,
Laurie

HIGH number Springfields. Check. First class shooting glasses. Check.

Glad YOU are mostly intact! Thanks for the real-world information.


*If any of you have vision health coverage and it happens to be from "Davis Vision," don't forget to ask your optometrist to have the lenses of your glasses (all of them including dark glasses) made to ANSI industrial safety glass specs. Don't know if they are as "bulletproof" as the Randolf Edge glasses, but they are free in case you can't handle the cost of the best. And they do stop birdshot. Don't ask me how I know....

um, just for clarification, I don't know much about powders, I found links to an "Accurate 5744" powder but not a 5477. Am I just not finding the right stuff?

Yes, my mistake. That is the powder.

Thanks for posting, glad you are ok.

I wonder if your blow up up was caused by the much debated but never proved case of too much air space in the case.
Regards.

Nero, you might have something there, but I'll let others figure it out. I won't fire another low number 03 again. I made a carefully considered decision when I decided to shoot mine, but I would not make the same decision after this experience.

Everyone has to make their own decisions about this and I won't criticize anyone that feels that he should do as I did and shoot a low numbered rifle, but I just won't do it again. I posted this note because I want everyone to have the best information moving forward, regardless of what you decide to do.

I do wish Michael was around to talk about this. I don't blame him in the slightest, but I wonder what he would have said about it.

Additional thoughts:
Just as I posted this originally, it occurred to me that if this was a case of powder detonation as claimed by some where there is large air spaced in the cartridge case, then the barrel probably should have blown, yet the receiver is what went to pieces and the barrel is almost good enough to reuse. Had this been a powder detonation, I think the barrel and chamber area would be badly ruptured. So, in re-reconsideration, I believe this is NOT an instance of detonation.

Lots of clues here, but not nearly enough information to really make any judgement. Having the receiver grenade to pieces suggests improper heat treatment, but there are merely vague clues as to what caused it to fragment. A complete head separation is more likely to be a sign of excessive headspace than high pressure. That can be a defect in the gun, or from using brass that is somewhat brittle and has had the shoulder set back too much during resizing. I had the latter happen with a VZ-24 Mauser rebarreled to .22-250 when I foolishly used some old brass a buddy gave me. Primers of the two cases fired prior to the head separation were flattened severely even though the load wasn't hot. But it was a lot warmer than this 5744 cast bullet load rated at 30,00 psi. Yet there was no damage to my gun. Plenty of gas escaped, and I was totally blinded for about 20-30 minutes and had numerous brass and powder particles hit my face. After I began seeing slight blips of light, it took about another 30 minutes for my vision to clear up. Young and dumb, I had no shooting glasses on at the time. Later firing with brand new brass that was properly resized for my chamber was no problem at all.

During a head separation like that, the case head is unsupported by the bolt face because the firing pin pushes it forward in the chamber perhaps several thousandths of an inch until the shoulder stops it. When the primer detonates and ignites the powder, the case expands and seizes the walls of the chamber. The unsupported head slams back into the bolt face, and this is what flattens the primer. Normally, with fresh brass, the case stretches and there is no problem at the time, but it might partly or completely separate after more reloading when the shoulder is again set too far back during resizing.

So was that sudden impact from the case head slamming the bolt face enough thrust to shatter the action on this low number Springfield? Or did the threaded portion of the barrel expand slightly due to excessive pressure... even though it appears un-deformed and not bulged. You would need before and after measurements to know for certain. If there was some slight expansion, then I would suspect either some detonation phenomena due to excessive air space... or an accidental double charge.

I'm wondering what kind of pressures the 44 gr. of 4895 charge under a 150 gr bullet that Michael used in this same rifle developed? Certainly more than the 30,000 psi from the Accurate 5744 load, That is pretty mild to do the type of damage described. This is why I hate even using any loads that will not overfill the case with an accidental double charge. But of course, I have done it thousands of times, especially with handgun reloads. Any of us can get distracted and make a mistake. That leads to the question of what pressure a double charge of this 5744 would develop. Would it actually be enough to rupture the chamber, or more likely, just enough to slightly expand it and shatter a somewhat brittle receiver? I would want to carefully measure the barrel thread diameter, and pour a Cerrosafe cast to verify that chamber dimensions have not expanded slightly. Maybe insert one of the previous fired cases all the way and check for any slight wiggle or slop. Even with a double charge, I would not expect any dimensional difference in the chamber area that you could see without measuring. But the grenade-like damage described here doesn't inspire me to want to shoot low number Springfields. I'm thinking of P.O. Ackley's action strength tests where he progressively loaded hotter and hotter loads in numerous rifles all chambered in .30-06. The action from a 6.5 m/m Type 38 Jap Arisaka was the last man standing, and finally, he filled a case with some pistol powder and weakened the case head by filing a notch in it. When he fired it with a long string on the trigger, the barrel threads stripped and sent the barrel down range. But the Arisaka action held.

I tend to agree with Nero. Read about S.E.E
Secondary Explosion Effect.
But yet, I seem to recall Bill Roberts telling me years ago that some early '03 Springfield had case harden issues - being too hard and came apart; maybe similar to this?
Hate to hear any such story - Glad you are ok to shoot another day.

I first heard of S.E.E. years ago when using WW 296 in my .357 magnum. I've read a lot about it and I just read several more articles on S.E.E.

One recurring theme was that ballistics labs have not been able to duplicate it with the same loads that allegedly blew up guns. Didn't matter if it was reduced loads of slow or fast burning powder... magnum primers or standard... powder tipped forward in the case or to the rear. The one common theme was that in virtually all instances, there was enough room in the cartridge case to fit an inadvertent double charge.

I'm not going to be one of those guys who absolutely scoffs at the notion of S.E.E. I believe that it does indeed happen with reduced loads of some powders like WW 296 or H 110. I also know there is weird stuff that happens with degraded powders and powders that are jostled and reduced to dust and have their deterrent coatings worn off. But 28 grs. of 5744 in a .30-06 case isn't a severe reduction like some more risky loads of fast powders that utilize 10% case volume. And when real detonation of powder does apparently happen, the results are catastrophic with chambers that rupture and peel like a banana, and case heads that become fused to the bolt face, i.e., enormously high pressures. This particular low number Springfield is said to have a barrel that, visually at least, looks like it could be reused. But we have heard about the improper heat treatment of some low number Springfields forever. I recall reading about one that shattered when a center punch was used to mark the receiver ring for drilling scope mount holes.

I think I can rule out the headspace problem as I understand it.

First, the brass was Winchester brass that had been previously fire one time only, and the same rifle. Thus, it was well fire formed to the chamber. It had been annealed before the first and and second loads in my annealing machine. I have great faith that it was neither over or under annealed.

More importantly, I was using a lead bullet (approximately Lyman #2 alloy for hardness), which I had loaded a bit longer than MOA so that they were forced into the rifling. This made the bolt hard to close because the lead was lightly engraved on the first band and nose and the bullets, being tumble lubed, had to negotiate that sticky nose into the rifling. There is no chance that the brass was anywhere but against the bolt face when the primer stuck.

Because the bullet was well engaged in the throat, there is also very little chance, in my mind, that the firing pin could have moved the case forward before detonating the primer. If this was happening, the primer strikes on the prior rounds would be quite light, but they are not.

Perhaps engaging the rifling with the bullet increased the pressures substantially. I have my doubts about this since breech seating procedures that do the same thing to a greater degree are widely practiced in the Schuetzen world where I sometimes hang out.

So, in sum, I think we can rule out headspace as the cause.

I will measure across the threads of the barrel and see what I find.

The remains of the blown round are still in the chamber so trying to fit a piece of brass in there is not possible. I have not tried to extract the brass. BTW, all the previously fired rounds had extracted normally with ease.

I am on the fence about these SEE events. Maybe, maybe not, but several folks have independently informed me about 5744 being a bit "tricky" in that it seems to have produced other unusual and rare events that might be signs of high pressure issues in seemingly normal loads.

The barrel's threads measure about 1.04" across the tops of the threads, though that measurement is tough to precisely for some reason. Behind the threads, over the funneled part of the barrel, it measures 0.999". In front of the shoulder it measures 1.145".

There is a little damage to the funneled part of the barrel. It looks like it took some impact with the concrete, and maybe some other metal pieces which made nicks and dents, but clearly, the barrel does not appear to be expanded in any significant way.

I don't know what "normal" should be for these measurements, but that's what I have on this one.

I sure would like to know the pressures that Michael's load developed. Does anyone have a book with pressure numbers for that load?

Brent,
I'm sorry to hear of the blow but happy to hear that you will be alright.
From what I understand, 5744 powder is a double based powder vs. single based and double based powders were band this year at the Quigley. I'm not sure why but it could be that it can be easily double charged in large cases or because of secondary explosion effect. I'm sure that you're scanning every website that you can for the answer, so I thought I would post this one person's thoughts on the subject.
From: "Norman Johnson"

Dear Sir:

I believe that your article warning of the dangers of SEE has inaccuracies that will discourage some shooters from safe and satisfactory experimentation.

SEE is an unexplained pressure excursion which has often blown up guns. It is associated with markedly reduced loads of very slow powders.

Contrary to the ubiquitous old wives tale, detonation is NOT a consideration with fast powders such as Bullseye, no matter how light the charge is or how spacious the case.

The phenomena of Secondary Explosion Effect (SEE) is known to occur only with the slow powders at very low loading densities. Precious little is known about the mechanics of the phenomenon and it is not even known if the expression, Secondary Explosion Effect, is accurate. SEE, despite best efforts of the leading powder companies, cannot be reproduced in the lab, at least in the literature that I have been able to find. Some of the powder companies now are putting notations in their manuals not to reduce CERTAIN loads below 80% loading density. One should note that such notations are for a very limited number of powders and cartridges, such as W-W 296 in the .44 Magnum. Actual documented SEE cases were at densities much less than 80% and with slow powders.

Cast bullet shooters discovered SEE while experimenting with some of the very slow powders. However, they have been using moderate speed powders at much reduced loads since the days of Dr. Mann, with no untoward results. Only the very slow powders exhibit SEE, usually those that were developed for the .50 BMG and magnum rifles such as MR-8700, etc. Recent events posted by Charlie Sharps, "Charles J. Sharps Ph.D" indicates that any powder that is SLOW FOR THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION, loaded to a significantly reduced powder density, might be suspect. His was a Hercules 2400, .45-70 Contender blowup.

If SEE were a real danger with other than very slow powders, we would have MANY gun blow-ups. Think about it a minute. The .38 Special case uses only about 20 - 30% of its case volume when loaded with typical target loads. Anyone seen a .38 go high order from a (true) target load? Cast bullet shooters fire millions of rounds each year using VERY low loading densities in most cases.

If that is not enough, the ultra-lite loads have been experimented with for a good many years, where a typical powder charge might be 2-3 grains of Bullseye, 700X, Unique, or any faster pistol powder in a .30-06 or .45-70 case. If SEE were a realizable phenomena for fast powders at greatly reduced loading densities, this would certainly have resulted in many blow-ups. These ultra-lite loads are not isolated uses as the NRA has written them of them over the years, at least as far back as 1967 (NRA Handloaders Guide, Pg. 154). Reloaders, unfortunately, ascribe some anomalies to conditions other than the actual causes. Several other things that can happen to increase pressures:

1. Excessively thick case neck thickness due to reforming procedures or metal flow - causes over-diameter cartridge neck. Jamming the large cartridge neck into a tight chamber neck is a very good recipe for disaster.

2. Build-up of residue in the neck area of the chamber which compounds 1, above. Cast bullet shooters have experienced this from lube build-up.

3. Stretching of case length resulting from both firing and drawing the expander button back thorough the neck during resizing - causes the mouth of the case to jam into the corresponding chamber area and impede bullet release.

4. Significant increase in local ambient temperature over that in which the load was developed. This can have more effect than the unwary may suspect.

5. Changing to another lot or manufacturer of brass that has a smaller internal volume. This is usually a hazard only if maximum loads for the gun were developed using larger internal volume brass.

6. Bullet seated to a greater overall length (OAL) so that bullet is forced into rifling when the action is closed. This is, of itself, not a hazard; many of my cartridges are prepared using this technique. However, if the load was developed with the bullet seated to normal factory load OAL, that same powder charge can be excessive when the bullet is seated so that it touches the lands.

7. A change of bullet ogive so that the effect of 6 is realized even though cartridge OAL remains the same. I have found at least two boxes of .22 caliber bullets that had noticeably different ogives in the same box.

8. Change to another lot of powder that is faster albeit of the same manufacturer and type.

9. Excessive headspace (or too short cartridges) which can result in head separation and allow hot gasses and molten metal to blow back in the shooter's face. This is not necessarily a pressure excursion, but that is often blamed as the problem.

10. Excessive powder charge. Reloaders are usually not willing to admit this possibility, but we all make mistakes. About 100 years ago, on the second box of .38 Specials that I ever loaded, the charges were so excessive that the web my poor wife's hand was split open. The gun held together and so has our marriage (five kids).

Of these causes, I have found numbers 3 and 10 to be the most common cause of pressure excursions.

SEE is a very real phenomena, but it is blamed many times when the shooter has, in fact, allowed one or more of the above conditions to occur. For those who care to investigate further, back issues of The Cast Bullet have a number of articles discussing same. Handloader has also treated the subject a few times.

SEE is a real phenomena, but, I suspect, not as prevalent as rumors would indicate.

Bob, thanks for that note. Actually, I haven't been searching the inet at all about this thing. It's pretty much behind me except for the chunk in my cheek.

I think I have seen this post by Norman Johnson before. It sure it helpful to see it again though. Numbers 3 and 6 may apply here, but then I would expect to see the chamber well distorted. Perhaps a large interaction between these two things and the brittleness of the metal. Or maybe just the latter. But regardless, I'll not be firing another low number 03 again. And I'm looking at my sportized Krag with thoughts of maybe it should find a new home... These modern firearms just aren't my thing and given that, why take the chances with them?

I've also seen this post by Norman Johnson before, and mostly agree with his conclusions. The only thing I question is his definitive statement that S.E.E. can only happen with reduced charges of slow burning powder. While powders like H 110 or WW 296 aren't near as fast as Bullseye, they are a lot quicker than some like 50 BMG. And some people who report S.E.E. problems seem to have had more problems with reduced charges of fast burning powder in bottleneck cases rather than in straight walled cases. But that is hearsay that I can't prove or confirm. If those incidents were actually from double charges, they should be equally distributed among fast and slow powders and straight or bottleneck cases.

I was surprised to see his root cause #3 come under suspicion here. If the cases were only on their second loading, I wouldn't expect much if any neck thickening due to firing or resizing/expanding.

I assumed that the pressure might have jumped a bit above the advertised 30,000 psi due to going slightly over max overall loaded length. But that didn't really set off any alarm bells with slight engagement of the rifling with a bullet cast of Lyman #2 alloy. What does jump out is the comment about the bolt being hard to close due to that into the lands seating arrangement. I wouldn't think slight engagement of the lands would add much effort to closing the bolt. But of course, I don't know just how much extra effort was involved. I've seated jacketed bullets to a point that they would leave slight land marks on the jacket, and that didn't add much effort at all to closing the bolt.

It's obvious that you are hardly a novice reloader Brent, so I believe you when you say headspace was not an issue with nearly new brass. So for the head to completely separate from the case, it had to be unsupported. That would mean either the bolt got set back or the bolt moved rearward because the lug recesses shattered. Can we assume that the safety lug is the only thing that kept the bolt from hitting your face? When I had my complete head separation on that .22-250, the case came out of the chamber pretty easily at home by making a little hook out of stiff wire and snagging the case mouth from the rear. I've also heard of jamming an oversize brass brush into the case and then pulling it back out.

I too have no idea what the min or max thread dimensions for your Springfield would be. From some articles I read by Frank DeHaas and others on blow-up testing of the Weatherby Mk V action, there was only slight expansion of the barrel just ahead of the receiver ring when pressures exceeded 100,000psi by firing a standard 78 gr- IMR 4350- 180 gr bullet load in a .300 Weatherby Mag into another 180gr bullet that was jammed into the throat. It increased from 1.147" to 1.1496"... nothing you'd see just by looking. Other sources tell of Remington 700's that had a .308" bullet fired down a .270 bore without blowing up the barrel, and 6.5 m/m Arisaka's that were rechambered to 6.5-06 and later fired with standard .30-06 ammo without changing bore or chamber dimensions. I also saw recommended 4895 loads of 47 grs. for a 150 gr. bullet at around 2700fps, so I'd assume Michael's 44 gr. load was moderate, and not much reduced.

I understand your reluctance to shoot any more low number Springfield's again. It was a number of months before I tried that sporterized VZ-24 after being temporarily blinded by it. The first shots with brand new brass were with the gun tied to a tire and me pulling a long string tied to the trigger... from behind a big oak tree.

I measured the barrel this morning with calipers and I find no unevenness that suggests anything terrible happened to the barrel itself. I don't think #3 really can be an issue here or I would see some swelling or at least the calipers would.

Some folks looking at the bolt think that it lifted straight up. I tend to agree. it was laying beside me while I did my body part inventory immediately after the blast. Two large objects punched big holes in the metal canopy as well. The blast went mostly up, not back, my face not withstanding.

The tire and string method is always a good idea at first, but I had already shot over 100 of this specific load. The first 100 fireformed the brass. It was the 119th shot that did the dirty work. So, unless you are going to do the tire and string forever, well....

Actually, one other thing to add, may that two things. First, I am very definitely a novice when it comes to loading bottleneck smokeless cartridges. I have very little experience with any smokeless loading. I'm a bpcr guy, and that I do know a little about.

Second, I thought I would post this picture just to implore people to buy and USE good glasses. I took this quite a few hours after the event while I was becoming bored in the hospital. You can still see a faint red flush on my skin from the blast and the peppering that is everywhere on my face- except behind where my glasses were. They were first rate Randolph Ranger Edge glasses. I ordered replacement lenses today for them. Expensive - hardly! Several hundred dollars were the cheapest insurance and protection one could ask for. Don't buy cheap stuff and don't trust your everyday glasses get good, purpose built, shooting glasses.

Glad you are alright Brent. I had a low number Springfield in my collection. Almost 100% condition: case color, blued barrel, proper WWI stock, sling and cleaning kit. I never fired it! Various sources attributed receiver failure to improper case hardening/heat treatment during the build up for the war effort. New employee's got them too hot and burned the actions causing them to be too hard. All were supposed to be recalled but many never were. Supposedly, Rock Island manufactured rifles did not have this problem but I did not own one and would not have trusted it anyway. From the early reports, everything would be fine until a catastrophic failure. I believe this is discussed in Brophy's fine book on the 1903 rifles. Again , glad you suffered no serious damage.

Strange that every now and then one hears of a LN '03 failing (this makes a couple I'm aware of happening in my five decades of shooting, aside from historic accounts from several generations back), but one never hears of Krags experiencing similar catastrophic failures even though supposedly of an inferior design but of essentially the same carburized low carbon steel.

I am grateful you are essentially ok, Brent.

Brent: First, Thank GOD you were not hurt! Second, I have read this blog for years and yours[I believe and recall]is the first instance of a DGS blog member having a major 1903 Springfield failure. I understand your feelings, but I compare this situation to someone who has had a near fatal car accident. They can tell you about it, but no one stops driving a car. Everyone must do what they feel is appropriate for them. I applaud you for bringing it to our attention in such an even-handed manner.

GOOD LUCK

H

Yes, you might think about it like driving a car, but consider whether your brakes are in good working order before you punch the start button.

Even cars, at some point cease to be driven.

Which brings me another question. If you had an action that you knew to be too brittle, or maybe if you had one you just suspected of being too brittle, can the beast be retempered somehow to "fix" this like one can put fix worn out brakes on an old car? Or is this a terminal disease for a rifle?

I'm glad you're able and willing to share the story. What a nightmare.

Maybe for curiosity, the barrel, near the chamber and several pieces of the receiver can be rockwell hardness tested. Except for the bolt, those two things were containing the cartridge. One seems okay, the other sounds to have failed in a unique way, many bits and pieces.

If wanted, a few thousandths could be polished off some receiver samples if there was a worry that a case was giving a falsely high reading. Anyway, with just a ballpark idea of the receiver steel composition, there's a fair chance that the steel could be temperature cycled and annealed, to bring the receiver steel closer in characteristics to the barrel steel that seemed to have been okay.

It's a tough one. I wouldn't want to wreck the finish of a rare classic just to 'try it out'. Then too, why go through that on a project action, because there must have been a worry in the first place and it's still a question mark. Maybe just start with another action, but I suppose a project could be recreating a unique historical piece.

Glad you're okay.

Brent: My family owns four(4)low number 1903's; a typical Sedgley Sporter in 30/06 and a Sedgley cut/shortened action Mannlicher in 300 Savage [not marked but with written provenance to an employee's lunchbox gun, as it is identical to a standard Sedgley .22 Hornet Mannlicher except in caliber]. The other two are an Alvin Linden/Buck Dunton saddle rifle and a 1903 Classic Sporter by Fred Adolph. To answer your question, this is our take on the Low Number situation. The two Sedgleys, we would fire with no hesitation, having never heard of a reheat treated Sedgley letting go. The other two we would fire at a special hunt, such as a Primitive Bolt Hunt [no scope/iron sights] but -would not- fire hundreds of rounds through them. Having grown up in a gun family I am lucky [and I know it!] that we don't justify owning a rifle by shooting it, we can shoot plenty of others and still never use/hunt them all. We have been very blessed in this way. However I understand other people are not in this lucky situation and or actually want to shoot their rifle. I will leave it at this; being as honest as I can, we don't shoot ours regularly but I have stood at the range alongside people spotting who do, with no fear. I think your story is a service to all of us, who own low number 1903's or are thinking of buying one.

GOD Bless

H

When you buy one of these classic oldies, it seems that most of the art, the part that makes is so, so much different from a bubba sporter, is in the wood and barrel profiles. And relatively little of it is in the action, though a tang here or there might be shaped a bit. So maybe, in hind sight, I coulda/shoulda swapped out that receiver, if reheat treating wasn't possible. Though many a collector might cringe at that, I really wonder, why not? The parts that I value are almost assuredly everything except the receiver actually. Wouldn't a quick swap, much like replacing a broken firing pin, be worth it, simply to keep the gun in the game?

Just thinkin' out loud today...

I am really confused, I looked at Accurate Powders 2016 reloading guide and for most powders, cartridges and bullets, they usually
give a starting load and a maximum load and a maximum chamber pressure. But for Accurate 5744 and the 30-06 cartridge they
do something different, they just say for the 30-06 and Accurate 5744

REDUCED LOADS - NO OTHER LOAD RECOMMENDED
ACCURATE 5744
160 (L) LYMAN #311672 27.0 2,085 3.035
173 (L) LYMAN #311041 25.0 1,920 3.015
200 (L) LYMAN #311299 22.0 1,625 3.250

where from left to right you have the grain weight, (L) stands for lead, LYMAN #311xxx is the mold number and the next number is the powder charge in grains followed by the velocity in fps and the cartridge overall length.

Here is a link to their reloading manual

2016 reloading manual

I don't do any reloading so I don't really what to make of this.

First, let me congratulate you in coming through an experience which I have shared as unscathed as you did. In my case, I know what the problem was and was able to avoid it happening again for years in the future.

The year was 1960 and I was preparing myself for my first encounter with the Marine Corps, in the form of their Platoon Leaders Class, at Quantico, Virginia. I was due to graduate from college in a few days, and twelve weeks at Quantico was to result in my commission as a Second Lieutenant, prior to my starting law school in the fall. Although I had been firing center fire rifles for years, I had never fired a .30-'06, so this session with a M1917 Enfield was supposed to introduce me gradually to the increased recoil of the M1 service rifle then in use.

With economy in mind, my first loads were with cast bullets propelled by a reduced load of IMR 3031, the all purpose powder for my varmint rifles. I selected 30 grains as appropriate both for the 150 grain cast bullets, as well as some 200 grain bullets I also had available.

I set about loading the cases with my Belding & Mull loading tool, which for those not familiar with it, is a neck sizing only operation, with depriming and sizing as separate operations. Since I was going to use a Belding & Mull powder measure as well, I had a loading block to hold the sized and primed cases for that purpose.

For those not familiar with the Belding & Mull measure, it is a device which is capable of extreme accuracy, often used by bench rest competitors. However, rather than emptying the measured powder directly in the case, it makes use of a charge tube to hold the measured powder, which is then poured into the prepared case using a powder funnel.

As luck would have it, right in the middle of this exacting operation the phone rang and I answered it. Somehow in the process, I lost track of which cases were empy and which already charged. As a result, the cases in one row of five received no charge at all and another five received double charges.

60 grains of IMR 3031 is a slightly above maximum load for a 150 grain bullet, but it is dynamite for a 200 grain one. I don't recall how many shots I had fired before I loaded the fatal 200 grain bullet into the chamber, but it had been enough to zero the rifle and accustom me to the recoil.

The head of the case simply evaporated, and bits of brass were driven down the bolt raceway on the left side of the action directly into my face. When I recovered and reached up to feel my face, my forehead was covered with blood, and I thought I had but a few moments left on earth. Fortunately, that proved not to be the case, and I survived a sadder but wiser young man. I did graduate from college, I was commissioned in the Marine Corps and spent three instructive years on active duty, right at the time when the war in Vietnam, from which I emerged unscathed, was heating up.

I have understandably been leery of low numbered Springfields. Consequently, I have approached them with extreme caution. My understanding is that the only ones who are extremely dangerous even when fired with the correct ammunition, are ones which were improperly heat treated, and allowed to reach a much higher temperature than normal in the heat treating process, resulting in chrystallization of the steel and turning them into booby traps.

General Hatcher writes in "Hatcher's Notebook" (pp 214-5) that at first during the forging process the receivers were sometimes being overheated. Without relying on measuring equipment of any kind, the workmen were judging the temperature of the metal in the furnace by its color when heated. After an investigation of the cause of brittle receivers, pyrometers were installed in the furnaces, and it was established that temperatures judged correct "by eye" could be as much as 300 degrees hotter on a bright sunny day as on a cloudy overcast day. This was identified as the cause of the "burned" receivers with chrystallized steel.

Soon after the pyrometers were installed, the method of heat treatment was changed from single heat treatment to double heat treatment and double heat treated rifles and the nickel steel rifles which followed them were referred to as "high number" Springfields, starting at serial number 800,000.

There is an easy way of determining whether a low number Springfield is one of the dangerous ones. The act of drilling and tapping the receiver for a receiver sight or a scope mount will reveal whether the metal is hard on the surface and soft underneath, as it should be. Should the metal prove to be glass hard all the way through, then it is probably unsafe to fire.

General Hatcher's investigation of accidents with the Springfield at the National Matches revealed that one of the most frequent reasons for blow ups turned out to be the use of grease on the jacketed bullets to prevent metal fouling in the bore. The grease inevitably found its was to the neck of the chamber and built up to a degree that finally a case neck was unable to expand sufficiently to release the bullet, causing pressure to soar. Excessive lubrication of cast bullets could cause the same result, as could use of a slightly oversize bullet in a chamber with a tight neck.

Rifles do strange things. I was firing once at a match at Fort Benning, Georgia when I shooter down the line from me suddenly got up with his rifle and hurried to the armorer's van. The rifle he was firing, a pre-64 Model 70 Winchester, was missing the top half of the receiver ring and the corresponding top half of the barrel above the chamber. The shooter had fired a shot, had it scored, and was attempting to reload when he first noticed that the accident had happened. Obviously no barrel obstruction had been involved, since the bullet reached the target 600 yards away. The only plausible explanation seemed to be that there had been a fault in the barrel metal which suddenly gave way and caused the barrel around the chamber to split, taking the top of the receiver ring with it.

If there was enough left of the receiver in the case at hand, it might resolve the mystery by determining whether of not the receiver steel had chrystallized. If that is not the case, then looking elsewhere to a possible double charge or excessive lubricant which had migrated to the case neck. Barring those possible explanations, then the blow up must remain a mystery.

Reading this thread has prompted me to re-read stuff I first read years ago on low number Springfields. There has been a lot of conjecture and misinformation written about this subject, and many even feel that Maj. Hatcher's report on these guns was incorrect and placed the blame in the wrong places. What is known is that failures are pretty rare. However, when they do fail, the results are fragments of shrapnel rather than bulging metal and venting of gasses.

Apparently, the U.S. Military made the attempt to re-heat treat a good number of these single heat treated receivers. The results were OK with the ones that weren't burnt in the first place, but it did nothing much to help the ones that were bad. Burnt is burnt, and you apparently cannot unburn steel that has been overheated and turned austenitic. Actually, it seems more likely that the damage was done, at the much higher temperature during the forging process than later during heat treating.

Several people have commented about being happy that Brent wasn't hurt. Well, he wasn't killed or seriously injured. But having experienced a complete head separation, I can tell you there is some pain when this happens. Seeing his picture brought back some memories. But in my case, the powder and brass particles were more concentrated in a peculiar V shaped pattern around and between my eyes. I later learned that was an intentional deflection of gasses designed by Paul Mauser when he came up with a different bolt shroud and improved gas handling characteristics in the 1898 action.

I have been hit in the face with boxing gloves many times, and hit in the face with brass particles and hot powder gasses at high pressures only once. I'll take the fist inside a boxing glove any day. I'm sure Brent will shoot again, but it will be hard not to blink the next time he squeezes a trigger. Take Brent's advice. Wear those shooting glasses. If he hadn't been wearing his, we might never know about this and his next dog could have been the seeing-eye type.

Brent, I am glad to learn that your eyes & fingers survived.

I have thought a lot about low-number 03s and Krags and why the 03s fail and Krags do not. My idea is that the Krags were case-hardened by men who were very skilled and were not under any war-induced pressure to hurry the job. The low-number 03s that fail are the 1917-1918 production actions, where production was everything and some less-skilled workers were given tasks that really needed better workers. Your RIA action was probably produced under those conditions. Do we ever read of 03 actions made in 1910 or 1912 blowing up?

Michael's 44 grains of 4895 is about 10 % lower than the ordinary GI M-2 150 grain load. That was 48 to 52 grains, depending on powder lot, etc.

Could there have been a problem with gas checks? Normally, they adhere to the base of the bullet, but not 100 % of the time. For a time, gas checks were hard to come by and there were/are some made from beer cans, etc. If a gas check had come off a bullet after being seated, or when being chambered, and was sitting loose on top of the powder charge, I would expect the confined powder to burn differently.

Once again, glad there was no permanent damage,

Richard

Waterman: Not wishing to be picky, but while you are right a higher incidence of failures fall in the 1917-1918 period, failures occur spread throughout the 1904-1918 period.

HTH

H

As for date of manufacture, the barbrel was stamped 10-12, so October 1912?

The Rock Island serial number was 200,000 something as I recall.

I doubt a gas check came off since they are seated in the neck and not hanging in space down below. Even so, it would be so light lying on only a moderate percentage of the powder, I can't see it having much effect that way.

Fred, I don't know what to make of that reloading stuff you found. I took my numbers from the Lyman Cast Bullet Book, 4th Ed. Most manufacture's manuals seem to be very lacking in cast bullet data, esp for modern cartridges.

Interestingly, the same reference for the .30-40 Krag with this bullet starts at 19.0 gr and has a max of 26.5 gr. The .30-06 started at 28 and goes to 38.5 (this for the 210 gr 311284 bullet that I was using).

Then going down slightly in weight to the 311299 (200 gr), the Max for 5744 is only 29.5 in the .30-06. Seems odd that a lighter bullet would have MUCH lower max than a heavier bullet in the same cartridge and for only a 10 gr difference in weight that seems like a lot of difference in the Max charge. The pressure of this 29.5 gr max load is 33,200 psi, just slightly higher than the pressure of the starting load for the heavier bullet. Peculiar.

For those interested, here is a link to a discussion on this over on Jouster M1903 page.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?58765-Low-Number-03-catastrophic-failure-recent

For those interested in 1903s blowing up, here is another.

I'm posting this simply because of the similarity to my experience - same powder, slightly smaller charge. Same result.

http://www.shilohrifle.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=284436#p284436

That's 3 rifles I've seen or heard that blew up in the last few years. Even a late serial Springfield. There seems to be a pattern developing. Cast lead bullets and the double based powder 5744. Possibilities?? Double charge,lead carbon build up in the throat, bullet forced into the lands, or secondary explosion.

After rereading this entire thread, I was reminded of something General Hatcher talked about with reference to accidents involving low numbered Springfields.

One of the problems had to do with the issue ammunition used at the time, so called "tin can" ammunition, which used bullets with silver colored jackets. These jackets were notorious for leaving metal fouling in the barrels, so the shooters took to lubricating them with a Mobil Oil product which they carried with them to the firing line and dipped the bullets in before loading them in the magazine.

The problem was that the lubricant, if not carefully applied, tended to migrate to the necks of the cartridge cases and thence to the rifle chamber. Oil and grease are incompressible substances, and the result of having one of them in the neck of the chamber was the same as firing a cartridge with a neck thickness so great that the neck was unable to expand and release the bullet.

Is it possible that some of the lubricant from your cast bullets might have ended up in the chamber and caused the same event to occur?

I am not familiar with tumble lubricating cast bullets, so I have no way of estimating whether of not this could have occurred. All my cast bullets have been lubricated with a device which lubricates and sizes simultaneously, so this is not a possibility with them.

Thanks for the follow up. Even the later ser.# seems to have failed in a disturbing way, receiver cracking with little apparent bending, noting how the barrels could contain the pressure. It was mentioned way back, but the Quigley match blowups were attributed to the same powder intended for low pressure loading. Maybe unlucky combinations of brittle and unpredictable pressure spikes.

I was thinking of making up reduced cast bullet loads for my 9.3 Mauser using 5744. I think I'll wait until this blowup stuff gets sorted out.

You might be waiting for a while. None of the loads were "reduced" loads by any stretch. But why mine blew, I still don't know. Could have been my fault. Could have, but I just don't know.

Oh yeah, xusa - you asked about lube. Tumble lubing is just coating the bullets with Lee Liquid Alox. Pretty simple. Could be part of the problem but I don't know. I've not heard of this being an issue with LLA, but that can be added to the list of possibilities.

I wouldn't think bullet lube could cause anything more than leading. Can't see how it could create any situation that would result in a gun blowing up.

Not "cause" but I think could contribute. I think a gun blowing up is often the result of more then a single assignable cause. Kind like, "Your stars just didn't quote line up well"

I think figuring out the cause can be interesting, but some receivers and actions seem to handle over pressure better than others. There are also some powders that seem to handle lower pressure loading better than others. I tend to go with the thought that I may load and pull the trigger on a round that's unintentionally dangerously over pressure. Hopefully, for me and more particularly for other that may be near by, I kept the possibility in mind.

If what happened to the issues on the Springfield rifles occurred today the government would do a complete re-call and de-mil of all suspect actions. That didn't happen back then. Statistically speaking and understanding how government contract are written and military quality systems work today, I would believe that the contractors would have every rifle returned and proof tested at a minimum before returning to service.
The custom Springfield's we see here are oh so nice to look at and works of art. But maybe they should be just that, works of art for display. Its your face, and unfortunately the guy on the bench next to you or behind you watching, so you get to choose and maybe the others not so much, but anything more then a box of factory 30cal ammo I would not try and then I am not sure of that either.
As I said you get to choose......

These rifles ever blow up with factory ammo? Seems it's always custom loads....

Mike Venturino is a big advocate for XMP5744 in old lever gun cartridges such as 38-55. I tried his loads in my 1893 Marlin with soft lead bullets, and was not impressed. In my case, I ended up with a lot of granules of burned powder residue in the action after firing. Maybe because she slugs with an oversize bore (.385 groove diameter) I am not getting a clean burn?

Anyhow, this actually created a safety hazard for me, as the granules built up in the full cock notch on the hammer. One day when I worked the lever, the hammer did not stay in the full cock position as it is supposed to, due to the cock stop being plugged with powder residue. Not thinking, I pulled the hammer back to full cock with my thumb and released it. Since the stop notch was filled up, the hammer did not stay put and instead dropped the hammer and discharged the rifle. I was essentially only holding it with my left hand on the forearm, and as such dropped the rifle in the sand, partly due to surprise and partly due to lack of control over recoil with one hand. Luckily I had the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and no one was harmed but it was upsetting.

Anyhow, I am not sure if my experience with XMP5744 residue is relevant, unless it could contribute to the neck expansion issue along with the accumulation of bullet lube, or if powder residue packed into the locking lugs and caused the bolt to not close as tightly as it should.

5744 and other double base powders were banned from the Quigley matches, just because of their tendency to spike and create weird pressures.

I am on the trail of a left hand Springfield conversion as we speak. This is a good reminder to make sure that it is a high number gun. I know that 800K is the break point on Springfield. What about Rock Island???

285,000

Possibly because all low number Springfields were built by government arsenals.