I have a 1903 bolt that is marked with NS , I'm assuming that stands for nickel steel. Are these bolts considered safe to shoot? It does not have a swept back bolt handle. Thanks.
Printable View
I have a 1903 bolt that is marked with NS , I'm assuming that stands for nickel steel. Are these bolts considered safe to shoot? It does not have a swept back bolt handle. Thanks.
Yes NS bolts are safe to shoot.
I assume it is marked NS on the safety lug and not the top of the bolt handle? If so, the bolt was made at Rock Island about 1919. As Mark I said, it is safe to use. It is fairly uncommon.
Thoughts on Nickel Steel Bolts
Rick the Librarian is a recognized expert on the RIA manufactured M1903’s so has a lot more knowledge on the subject than I do but here are some thoughts.
According to Gen Hatcher and “vishooters” web page, RIA started using nickel steel for the manufacture of some receivers and bolts in August 1918, though the production of DHT carbon steel receivers and bolts was continued simultaneously. I do not know: (1) the ratio of DHT to NS receivers, (2) the ratio of DHT to NS bolts. Further I do not know the ratio of bolts to receivers – one-to-one? All NS parts are marked “NS” because the heat treatment for NS differs from that of DHT parts. According to “vishooters” web site the curved bolt handled was introduced at RIA in April 1919 so there should have been some straight handled RIA NS bolts – how many? Who knows? Another question comes to mind. During the assembly of rifles, were the two different type steel parts kept separate or used indiscriminately? Were NS bolts and receivers separated from DHT bolts and receivers during assembly? While the receiver is marked NS, the marking is on the face of the receiver and visible only if no barrel is installed. A NS receiver with a barrel installed is not identifiable visually.
Beware of bogus “NS” bolts. In the 1960’s a now defunct gun parts supplier advertised NS bolts at a very reasonable price. I ordered three of them. Two tuned out to be easily recognizable DHT bolts (J5’s) and one was a Remington. They had all been marked NS on the top of the bolt handle. The “N” and the “S” were struck crudely and separately. I do not believe that Remington ever marked it’s bolts “NS”. (Comments from the experts requested, please). On the old Jouster board, one contributor indicated that he was paid by this company to stamp a large number of bolts of various manufacturers with the notation “NS”.
Many contributors indicate that there was never any problem with the SHT bolts, only the SHT receivers gave a problem. I have a very nice SHT bolt (with and “S” marking) and it works very nicely in a M1903 but I am reluctant to use it.
“vishooters” web site had good information on how to identify the various SA/RIA bolts.
Just some thoughts
I was told at Camp Perry that the SHT bolts did occasionally fail, with one or both lugs shearing off. There was no mention of injury or even damage to the rifle. The safety lug prevented the bolt from leaving the receiver. Shooters were advised to bring a spare, headspaced bolt so if one failed, you would simply exchange bolts.
(1) RIA is on record as having began using nickel steel at S/N 319xxx. But, my data base shows that nickel steel did not appear in any significant quantity until much later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosine26
(2) The ratio of RIA NS to DHT bolts is probably greater than 10:1 (i.e., 10 NS bolts for each DHT bolt).
(3) The ratio of bolts to receivers is slightly greater than 1:1 because extra bolts were made as spare parts.
(4) During rifle assembly, no effort was made to segregate DHT from NS parts.
(5) You are correct. Remington did NOT mark their bolts "N S".
(6) Springfield Armory is on record as having never pulled SHT bolts from service. They explicitly stated that SHT bolt failure rates were not sufficiently high to justify pulling them from service. Nevertheless, I do not recommend using an SHT bolt for shooting when strong WWII alloy steel bolts are readily available very inexpensively.
Hope this helps.
J.B.
Thanks for the input.
Why the high ratio of NS to DHT bolts?
Maybe NS bolts were easier/faster to produce????????
The high ratio of NS to DHT bolts probably had something to do with availability of steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosine26
Receivers and bolts were made from two different sizes of steel bar stock. So, there was no relationship between receivers and bolts with respect to the steel bars they were made from. Some of Rock Island's steel also failed to pass chemical alloy tests in early 1918 and was rejected. Perhaps the rejected steel was that used for making bolts. The documents are not clear.
In any event, RIA DHT bolts are downright scarce.
J.B.
Thanks for the info
Here are some pics of the bolt:
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...s/100_2003.jpg
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...s/100_2007.jpg
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...s/100_2009.jpg
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...s/100_2010.jpg
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...s/100_2011.jpg
You have a Rock Island Nickel Steel bolt made in the late 1918-early 1919 period. The bolt sleeve/safety lock assembly are from a WWII Smith-Corona '03-A3.Quote:
Originally Posted by MIL rifle1
The bolt, if in good condition, should be safe for shooting.
Hope this helps. Thanks for the pictures!
J.B.
Your welcome, and thanks for all the info. I love this site, you guys are always so helpful. I wish there was some kind of get together so all 1903/a3 enthusiast could get together share info, and show off their rifles. I guess it's called the internet. Thanks, Paul.
All 3 commerical manufacturers were using nickel steel to make the M1917 rifle. Did Winchester supply RIA with a small amount of nickel steel in 1918? Exactly how and why did RIA start using nickel steel so quickly in 1918? Who assisted with the nickel steel use? Anybody know for certain?
(1) No. Winchester did not supply RIA with nickel steel in 1918.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calif-Steve
(2) RIA was able to switch over to nickel steel quickly because their steel inventory was very low. Nickel steel had the advantage of being somewhat insensitive to heat treating temperature whereas carbon steel was extremely sensitive to heat treating temperature.
(3) I'm not sure I understand your third question.
(4) The information you inquire about was published in the U.S. Martial Arms Collector magazine about 10 years ago. I was co-author.
Hope this helps.
J.B.
John: I heard a rather long story about a Winchester engineer who was in the Army Reserve (circa 1918). The story goes he was shipped off to RIA in 1918 and helped RIA with the nickel steel production. I don't know much more then that. I really don't know if the stroy is true. Interesting, at least.
I have no information on a Winchester engineer working at RIA in 1918.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calif-Steve
When the heat treatment problem erupted, a special team headed by Col. W. P. Barba was formed to investigate. Barba, I am led to believe, worked out of the Ordnance office in Washington, D.C.
Barba dispatched a special investigative team to RIA under the command of Maj. R. P. Johnson. After Maj. Johnson's team completed their investigation, they recommended in mid-March, 1918, that RIA be permitted to switch over to 3-1/2% nickel steel. Their recommendation was approved and orders were immediately placed with the Crucible Steel Co. and the Illinois Steel Co. for nickel steel to be delivered in 6-8 weeks. The first nickel steel receiver was serialized on August 1, 1918, and bore S/N 319921. My investigation, however, reveals that RIA didn't switchover to nickel steel en masse until about 60,000 receivers later.
RIA had lots of heat-treating expertise and capability of their own. And nickel steel was not particularly difficult to heat treat. I would, therefore, question their need for assistance.
Perhaps RIA required assistance with machining nickel steel. Nickel steel, I believe, is a bit more difficult to machine than carbon steel.
Hope this helps.
J.B.