Low Number Springfield M1903 Safer to Shoot?

[gsimmons]

Mosin Nagant and Model 1917?

[RCS]

Correct answer

[Johnny Peppers]

Whether you decide to shoot it or not, I would ignore the "academic" paper written by Dr. Lyons. He took the figures compiled by Julian Hatcher and calculated your risk of having one fail, but Hatcher didn't start keeping records until 1917, and then only on those that he could authenticate. The rifles that were failing before record keeping was what caused a safety concern and prompted the study by Hatcher. Records of failure show up in Springfield Research records, but none of these were included in Hatcher's data.

[Rick the Librarian]

Thanks, Johnny ... while I admit there are two sides to this issue, I don't think Dr. Lyon's research exactly qualifies.

[JGaynor]

The data set of rifles with burst receivers compiled by Julian Hatcher is admittedly pretty small - less than 70 rifles.

However, people studying the issue should keep a few things in mind:

1. The Hatcher data consists of reports of "in service" accidents involving burst receivers,
2. Hatcher implies that "proof testing eliminated most of the weak ones" but he does not quantify the percentage of failures during proof.
3. Far and away the lions share of burst receivers (in service) occurred during the 1920s well after the decision to change the manufacturing process and well after the conclusion of world war one. it was during this period that a lot of the lower quality war time ammunition was being burned up.

So, all this suggests to me that quality control (proof testing) failures were probably a somewhat more substantial problem than we can tell from the literature. Otherwise why would ordnance completely shut down rifle production at two government arsenals in the middle of a shooting war?

[browningautorifle]

why would ordnance completely shut down rifle production at two government arsenals in the middle of a shooting war?

That I hadn't heard about...not having Hatcher's notebook in my library.

[Rick the Librarian]

No kidding -- in 1917-1918, they were hurting for rifles and they needed all they could get.

[Cosine26]

As I remember it, Hatcher indicates that Rock Island did actually stop production for a period.
FWIW

[JGaynor]

The attached link goes to a chart of monthly rifle production at SA and RIA ('03's) as well as Eddystone, Ilion and Winchester (m1917's) that was prepared in 1918.

Between january and July the two arsenals were effectively shut down. Whatever they did manage to produce was most likely just to prove the viability of the DHT process.

Once more my original point was doing the shift to DHT was a drastic step and there had to be more going on than a literal handful (maybe a dozen) instances of burst receivers...

Not to be brusque but please spare us all irrelevant arguments about greased cartridges and weak barrels. Those things happened too but they are another story.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...tion_month.jpg

[firstflabn]

Between january and July the two arsenals were effectively shut down. Whatever they did manage to produce was most likely just to prove the viability of the DHT process.

You ignored the last sentence in the note. SA records show 81,052 barreled receivers made in FY18. The table only shows complete rifles. RIA production was trivial, even at its peak, so not much effect from whatever happened there. Disrupted yes; shut down, no. Worst possible time? Maybe. (I can't prove it, but it's hard to believe the B/Rs were produced in the first half of FY18 when SA was rapidly expanding the operation and doubling their rifle output).

The decision to rely on M1917s for the vast majority of new troops had pretty much already been made by the time the '03 problem arose - eased I'm sure by the rapid acceleration in M1917 production. By Feb '18, M1903 production was only needed to replace combat losses and to build up reserves for the 1919 Spring offensive.