Remember there are "low number" bolts as well as receivers. Here's one that lost both locking lugs AND the safety lug.
http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/y...numberbolt.jpg
Printable View
Remember there are "low number" bolts as well as receivers. Here's one that lost both locking lugs AND the safety lug.
http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/y...numberbolt.jpg
Yikes! That's pretty scary. The high number bolt bodies are still pretty cheap and would be a minimum change if you just have to shoot a low number 1903. You could have 2 bolts, a low number one for display and a high number for shooting. (Personally I wouldn't shoot a low number, especially after seeing pictures like this!). Salt Flat
Karl, is this a verified low number bolt.? Or is it an ordnance test of some kind.
Basically, what's the source? Not doubting you just curious..
"Nuts"
Although there were some reports of case-hardened bolt failures, the Army didn't consider the problem bad enough that case-hardened bolts were replaced on the same scale of low numbered receivers. When a low-numbered M1903 was sent in for overhaul, the receiver would be replaced, but not the bolt (unless there was a mechanical reason requiring it).
Hi RTL
There is an item on the DCM page in an early 1930’s American Rifleman that indicated that when a low numbered rifle was sent to the SA by an NRA member for receiver replacement, the bolt was replaced with a high numbered bolt. The article indicated that many owners objected to this and that the SA would replace to bolt only if requested to by the owner.
I believe that this was after SA changed to nickel steel and the owners felt that they were “sticky”. I shot with Jack Moore, who attended the early 1920’s and 1930’s National Matches and he indicated that after the change to NS, many of the old time shooters retained their SHT bolt because they were “slicker”. I have a SHT bolt and I must admit that it is very “slick”; However, I never used it because I was leery of using it with high pressure match loads. My AR magazines go back to 1927 and that kind of info is un-indexed so I cannot find the article except with a page by page search of twenty years of the AR.
FWIW
WarPig 1976
I came across the bolt photo while doing some research at the national archives.
It was in the signal corps still photos record group
Due to the Filing systems used at NARA it would take weeks of work to find any documents related to the photo - if indeed any do exist. At some point in time, documents and photos were split into two different archives having very different rules and regulations, and sometimes residing in different buildings.
As for the ID of it being "low numbered" it seems to have the straight down handle.
The Army made a point of checking all low number bolts. I will guess that practice started with the Krag rilfe, just my guess. IG Teams use large hand-held magnifying glasses to conduct inspections. They are very serious guys. But the Army did not withdraw the low number bolts, just a fact, that's all.
Roger that, like I said just curious.
"Nuts"
Calif-Steve -
It's just me - BUT i'm not willing to risk my eyes or life Based on what The 1930's army THOUGHT they knew about metallurgy, NO MATTER HOW BIG A MAGNIFYING GLASS they used!
You must remember the US Army was shooting these things every day. So they certainly had a direct interest in the whole matter. The low number receivers were a very real concern. But not the bolts. Simply a historical fact. That is all it is.
I want to offer my sincere apologies to all the forum members who were so upset by my posting the Signal Corps photo of the damaged rifle bolt. I really had the best of intentions.
I will cut the link to the evil photo ASAP, and you all will be safe from it's harmful effects
best regards
Gee whiz,,, Karl, why the negativity? Nobody has commented on this thread in 4 days and none of the comments justify such a reaction. As a matter of fact it seems kinda TROLLISH. Even if you not a TROLL be aware,, such a attitude isn't going to get you very far in these forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by karl schmidt
"Nuts"
The comments on the photo made it clear that by posting that photo I was on some sort of mission to get shooters to dispose of perfectly safe rifles. The Inspector General had checked each and every bolt with "a big magnifying glass" and declared them safe. how dare you post a picture of a damaged bolt, no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig1976
The photos I post are just interesting "road kill" that I come across in my research in the military sections of the NARA (National Archives Records Administration)
I assure you there is NO Conspiracy or agenda involved. You may notice sometimes I don't even scan the title on the reverse since to me they are just odd ball photos that others might enjoy, they have no value to me.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...aeeb75e8-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a388c052-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e38bfc49-1.jpg
You don't get it. Indeed the Army was concerned. It was a big inspection point. Not a some sort of a joke to the people shooting the rifle. The Army could certainly have replaced all of the early bolts, not a big deal at all. But the problem wasn't the bolt themselves. It the the receiver. You do realize there is a thing as a low number barrel? The Army would turn-down barrels and blow them up to find out where the weak spots were. I have seen photos of blown-up barrels. Interesting stuff, for sure. All interesting historical stuff from a 100 years ago.
Karl I would have liked to have seen the bolt picture.
I too think you might be over reacting, I don't think anybody actually said "how dare you post a picture of a damaged bolt, no such thing."
Discussion is always a good thing, I think this entire post has value, thanks for posting it.
Regards all!
Tom
PS Like all your pictures!