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

Part of the "low number" lore is the government spent a lot of time investigating and documenting failures.

That was yesterday wish they spent as much time today watching Peanut butter factories or wall street.

I have no doubt Mausers Kraigs Trapdoors or other rifles of the era failed from time to time. And not much was said about it.

Boats

Last summer I played with five low-numbered 1903’s four Springfields and one Rock-Island. I did not have time to do much more than fire some WWII AP rounds that I had cut the cases with a hacksaw beforehand with. Lot of little brass fragments in the test box but all three actions are fine. If I have time this summer I plan to turn some of the cases down in the lathe until I can get a complete head separation and see what if anything happens. I’m not sure what else I can do regarding case failure. I am thinking about making some spacer rings for the barrel to put a lot of artificial headspace but then most likely I’d need an extractor to hold the case so it would fire. Anyone have a LN receiver they want to donate to the project?

I applaud your investigative interest in finding out the strength of these low # actions but please stay away from any loaded rounds with hacksaws, drill bits, lathe tools, etc.
Loaded rounds have been known to detonate from such cuttings into the brass cases. Making dummy rounds from loaded rounds by simply drilling a hole in the side to dump the powder has produced unpleasent results.

The article I linked to says the arsenals tested these receivers to 75,000 pounds per square inch on the proof test which is considerable to say the least. Because of this I'd bet on the bullet in the bore scenario in most cases that involve high enough pressure to wreck an action especially when coupled with suspect brass of any kind.

It is amazing how much of an overload an action can take all other things considered. I remember an article in a Rifle-Shooter magazine once where the author purposely blew up a Swedish Mauser and I believe an Enfield. One statement I never forgot was "The Mauser 96 may be a piece of junk, but it is a very quality piece of junk". I don't remember how much of a load it took to destroy it but it was way more than any sane person would ever do.

mp cutting the case lets the powder burn before it builds pressure------all of your testing should be done hand held
for results.

Just had to get new glasses. After reading this thread I paid the extra to get ANSI safety-rated frames and lenses for both pairs (neither my insurance nor Medicare pays for this) plus safety side panels for the ones I usually wear hunting and shooting. Stuff happens to us curious souls--nice to be able to see afterwards....

Very interesting thread; I appreciate all the thought and experimentation (and attendant cost and risk) that some of you guys go through for the benefit of the shooting/collecting community (not to mention your own curiosity, a very valuable thing in itself).

I need to go off on another tangent before I can get back to the LN problem. I don’t think that many people are aware that a large number of 1917’s blew up. I’ve never been able to locate the total number destroyed but it was high. It would not surprise me to find out more 1917’s were wrecked than 1903’s.


May I suggest you read “The Price of Carelessness” by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918.

“Down in the Small Arms Section, Engineering Bureau, the Ordnance Department in Washington there is a pile of worthless junk that was but lately nearly a score of finely finished, strongly built United States rifles, Model of 1917.”

“With receivers demolished, ruptured barrels, split stocks, and damaged bolts, they are eloquent evidence of the price the United States Government has to pay, in addition to all the other cost of waging modern war, because the soldiers to whom these rifles were issued were either careless or ignorant.”

This is one of the most practical and informative threads that I have had the pleasure of viewing on any forum and has cleared up a lot of misinformation and urban legend.Thanks to Mike and everyone else who gave information.

When the USA started drafting men for WWI by the hundreds of thousands the training system was just overwhelmed. There was both a shortage of cadre and experience officers with firearms training. The most common reported cause of action failures during these times for the 1917’s was bore obstructions. From what I have been able to learn all the 1917 action failures were attributed to bore obstructions.


Even though Hatcher wrote a book many years later with low-numbered 1903 information A.L. Woodworth was the person who did the actual hands-on investigation at Springfield Armory of the failed 1903’s. He wrote a report for “Army Ordnance” “The Bursting of Rifles in Service”. Which was reprinted, later, in The American Rifleman of December, 1929. Woodworth likewise concluded that the majority of LN failures was because of bore obstruction. This theory was also suggested by Townsend Whelen who had worked at both Frankfort Arsenal and Springfield Armory.


Small Arms Design & Ballistics Vol. II by Townsend Whelen “All Army rifles which have been “accidentally” injured in service are shipped to Springfield Armory for examination. Mr. A.L. Woodworth, Engineer of Test at the Armory for the past thirty years states that in ninety nine percent of the cases the accident has been caused by an obstruction in the bore, or by firing a wrong cartridge, that is an improper or wrongly sized cartridge, or one handloaded to excessive pressure. It is interesting to note that in the majority of these accidents an effort is made to conceal the real cause of the accident, but the evidence is always perfectly plain.”