Printable View
Years ago, I used to amuse myself by developing various databases. One of the many was a database of 1903 failures. It showed a total of 96-receiver failures, some that led to the condemnation of what we call LN Springfields today. I did find HN failures, and they are included in the total of 96. Enjoy.
Oops. I had to zip the file to upload it. The original file contained a serialization chart and a bunch of plots that I eliminated in the zip file to save bandwidth.
Thanks for this. Wonder what some of the abbreviations like SHT mean and why most of the failures are grouped in two spans of a few years?
"Single Heat Treatment" and it's grouped together because of ammunition. Poor ammunition or incorrect ammunition exploits weaknesses in the receiver. One report was of a rifle club using "bullseye" ammunition. I'll post that report in a day or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
The ordnance department listed all the failures that occurred and the cause. Didn't have time today to post everything but this is from 1918. So I'll post this real quick while I have a free moment today. The report in question listed all failures from 1917-1923. Among other reasons were broken bolts, bore obstructions and barrels splitting.
It's important to remember there were high number rifle failures as well as low number failures. And there were 1917 receiver failures as well as 1903 receiver failures (albeit there were significantly less 1917 receiver failures). War time expediency did play a role in quality control.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bBUpaKLl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...MbJBss0l-1.jpg
Thanks Jim.
My favorite is the "Slag in the bore" one.
I recall Hatcher's notebook warns of greasing ammunition.
Having inspected literally thousands of rifles at the CMP and studied SA failure reports in the National Archives, I have concluded that many failure reports were faulty with respect to probable cause. I don't dispute that failures occurred, but many causes are very questionable. Thanks for sharing!
J.B.
Perhaps you could elaborate on that a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard
After spending a good portion of 20 years investigating firearms accidents, including many blow-ups, I would have to endorse that conclusion, but I'd like to know more about how you arrived at it.
Most gun mishaps are very fact-and-circumstance specific, and the sequence of events is also critical. Especially in the case of blow-ups, reconstruction is often very difficult, and the most valuable piece of evidence--the fired cartridge--is usually destroyed. It often takes an experienced firearms examiner with engineering background to accurately determine the initiating cause; the conclusions of most laymen (including many gunsmiths and armorers) are far less reliable. My own observation has been that their conclusions are more often wrong than right.
M
I wonder if the Lee Metford and Lee Enfield rifles had the same kind of problems? Haven't ever seen any discussion, did I miss something?
To the extent that faulty ammunition (sometimes accompanied by operator error) is the initiating cause of an explosion, the same factors probably are applicable to all military rifles, not just Lee Metford and Lee Enfield. All of them suffer failures in service.
M
Check your PM. And Merry Christmas!Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike
J.B.
I've never heard of similar problems with the Metford/Enfield rifles of the same time period.
A few differences at work:
*The .303 British round, being a rimmed case (which offers a natural seal/vent shield), does not have the same risk for gas venting.
*The M1903 design leaves part of the case rear unsupported, enhancing the potential for a case failure in the event of weak or damaged brass. (Supposedly this was later resolved by a change in the bevel angle to the chamber face on new barrels, slightly lengthening the chamber?)
*The original M1903 design has woefully inadequate ability to vent gases in the event of a case failure. One small vent hole in the right side of the receiver ring, with matching holes in the extractor and one locking lug, all of which are prone to plug up with dirt, grease, and/or Cosmoline. This caused case failure gases to expand into the receiver ring and bolt body, which were obviously never designed for "outward" expansive stresses. The larger "Hatcher hole" on the left side of the receiver ring, added to very late production of new rifles, and drilled into some older receivers, was a major improvement here.
Contrast that with the Mauser 98, with two nice big vent holes in the bolt body to vent gases out through the left bolt lug channel and thumb clearance of the receiver.
I'd find it hard to believe they kept it a secret all this time. I would think we'd have heard. Rifles destroyed on the battlefield aside...because anything can happen there. I still have trouble believing soldiers stuffed an 8mm Mauser cartridge into a .30 cal chamber and fired it, but I've read the testimony.Quote:
Originally Posted by enbloc8
I'm a layman, but here's my take on that: There are two reasons that defective ammo would not have the same effect on an Enfield rifle and a 1903. One is the method of headspace. The .303 headspaces on the rim, the .30-06 headspaces on the shoulder. The other is that the 1903 uses a conical breech. This leaves a significantly larger portion of the case unsupported by steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daan Kemp
Ammunition problems and not metallurgical? Was the steel in LE rifles better or just different?
issues iv seen over the years of working on these rifles, is how they handle a simple case head failure. they dont..
Double heat treats seem to fair much better, as do Remingtons. i have seen a SC that completely failed, it was do to handloading with Japanese surplus machine gun powder.
i would say as long as you keep an eye on headspace and only fire quality factory ammo, not old surplus and your handloads, you should be ok. though i still wouldnt recommend doing so. gloves and safety glasses added to your hearing protection is a must