1921 Tin Can Ammo and Low Number Receivers

[slamfire1]

How many of the problems reported with the Tin Can ammo was really due to brittle low number receivers?

Would there have been a many low number receivers on the firing line in 1921, or would they all have been replaced by double heat treat and nickle steel rifles?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Mike Haas]

How many of the problems reported with the Tin Can ammo was really due to brittle low number receivers?

Would there have been a many low number receivers on the firing line in 1921, or would they all have been replaced by double heat treat and nickle steel rifles?

Kinda reminds of Ralph Nader's book about the Chevy Corvair. "Unsafe at any Speed".
Show me a substantiated instance using Service Ammo since 1954(thats 55 years ago), or any instance of Cast Bullets reloads, that resulted in a "low number receiver" letting go that is conclusively attributed to a "brittle" low number receiver.

[Bob S]

Go here:

http://www.gunloads.com/castboolits/index.php?

And post that request. Look for "Buckshot", and ask him to post the pictures of his low number that let go with a double charge of 4198 behind a 311284. I think I have the load info correct, but it's been a few years since I saw the pix.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Jim Tarleton]

I have those pictures, and that was a nice rifle. Buckshot was very lucky.

Jim

[Da CSP 1903shooter]

There should be no argument that the early single heat treated receivers are not as safe to shoot as the later receivers. I too have seen pictures of blown up single heat treated rifles and yes it is a real ugly thing when it happens. But just about every range that I have ever shot at has at least one revolver on display. Sometimes a Colt or often a Smith & Wesson, sometimes an old Webley or the like. They usually have them in a display case hanging on the wall as a "WARNING!!!" as they are blown to pieces. I am sure that many of you have seen the same thing. The cause is usually hand loads that were double charged or incorrect ammo used. But you still see a lot of people shooting revolvers and there is not a revolver made that can't be blown to pieces with one bad cartridge. But I have never heard anyone advise not to buy a revolver "Because it can blow up". Now I don't shoot low number 03's. But that is because I no longer own any, all my rifles are high numers. But I also have never owned a low number rifle that I have not shot and I have owned a lot of them. Any gun can blow up, I would be willing to bet that there have been a pretty large number of Winchester model 70's that have blown up over the last 50 plus years. True, they don't shatter like cast iron when they do. But I bet they hurt like hell when they let go! I guess the best recommendation is; If you drive a Volvo because you are the worrying type, don't shoot a low number Springfield because you will wet your pants everytime you pull that trigger. If you ride a motorcycle go ahead and shoot the thing because you are at a greater risk everytime you start that bike.

[JGaynor]

How many of the problems reported with the Tin Can ammo was really due to brittle low number receivers?

Would there have been a many low number receivers on the firing line in 1921, or would they all have been replaced by double heat treat and nickle steel rifles?

According to Gen Hatcher the problems noted with the tincan ammo at the matches were due in each case to shooters putting grease on their cartridges. He did not note any instance of a low number or bad heat treated receivers among the 'several rifles that were wrecked".

Regards,

Jim

[Ramboueille]

Kinda reminds of Ralph Nader's book about the Chevy Corvair. "Unsafe at any Speed".
Show me a substantiated instance using Service Ammo since 1954(thats 55 years ago), or any instance of Cast Bullets reloads, that resulted in a "low number receiver" letting go that is conclusively attributed to a "brittle" low number receiver.

Mike,

You're probably right. I witnessed a low number receiver exploding some years ago on a bench rest shoot. Fortunately he was quite a few over from me and had already fired quite a few rounds. It wasn't very pretty, he lost an eye.

He was using lead bullets and reduced loads so there was no investigation. He swore the loads were good, everybody does. I don't remember the powder he used now but at the time it could easily fill the case twice or more. No way to prove anything but we had our own suspicions.

[sandymac@mac.com]

Gents: Afteer reading the posts on the above subject, I looked thru several old Rifle Score Books which I have from the the 20's to the Early 1940's. I found that in 3 cases low numbeer springfields were being fired. One from August 1927 at Camp Perry was a member of the Ohio State Rifle team and he was using Rifle No. 236779. Ammo used wass FA 1926. Anoother from 1923, Plattsburg, NY shooter using 184404 and USC 1918 ammo. This is a very small sample, but one might conclude that low number springfields were in common use during that time. I'm sure there are a large number of members who have similar books data from which might shed more light on the subject if a much larger sample was available.