low serial numbers

[Fred G.]

Could Avis have been the barrel manufacturer you're thinking of that made some bad barrels? I know that Some of the Avis barrels were burnt or weak from some bad process in production.

[Calif-Steve]

Not beat a dead horse but: Springfield had a very strict manufacturing process that HAD to be followed for the entire manfacturing process of the M1903. Pryometers HAD to be used in the Forge House, no if, and, or buts about it. The older production workers never used them and all Krags were made of very hard steel as were 800,000 M1903 rifles. RIA was equally guilty of this fault. When the Army conducted its in-house investigation they actually followed the raw steel from its suppliers to SA Shipping/Receiving Dock. They then walked into the Forge House and saw the production workers watch the steel go cherry-hot and then began pouring out finished steel. No pryometers were used, although a rack of them was present in the Forge House but unused. Almost immediately the mystery was solved. Again, almost immediately SA began using prymoters and all of the production workers voiced concerns that the pyrometers were "off" and they knew better. SA fought the low number vs. high number for years and virtually all of the Army Officers involved got away Scot-free.

[no4mk1t]

Could Avis have been the barrel manufacturer you're thinking of that made some bad barrels? I know that Some of the Avis barrels were burnt or weak from some bad process in production.

Yes, now that you mention it, it probably was Avis. That's what I get for not looking it up.

[Calif-Steve]

Yes, Avis barrels had a poor reputation. I think Sedgley ended up with the Avis barrel tooling and made barrels through WWII. The Sedgley barrels are well regarded.

[bulldog_mack13]

Did I understand the post correct, the war time receivers were the ones to watch out for, but the pre war for example a 1910 M1903 would be better quality?

[Calif-Steve]

Actually, a low number is a low number. They are plenty of nice high number rifles around. Go find a nice high number, they will run right all day long.

[JGaynor]

Did I understand the post correct, the war time receivers were the ones to watch out for, but the pre war for example a 1910 M1903 would be better quality?

No. The incidence of receivers burned in the forging process spans the entirety of production from 1903 until introduction of Double Heat Treating. Some years were better than others.
A couple of things to keep in mind when interpreting the Hatcher data:
1. The burst receiver issue had nothing repeat nothing to do with the split barrel problem of WW1.
2. The so called greased cartridge issue caused bolts lugs to be sheared and was unrelated to the burnt receiver forgings. The grease was applied by match shooter to reduce copper fouling in the bore it was a short-lived problem in the early 20's.
3. The U.S. did not anticipate WW1. Rifle production at RIA was shut down completely in 1913. Production at SA was likewise steadily reduced prior to our entry into the war. Many of the skilled workers left the arsenal to get jobs elsewhere. So who was left?
Only the most senior old farts like those in the forging shop who knew better than to use tools like the new fangled pyrometers.
4. The percentage of receivers that burst in service was very small. Some of them blew up almost immediately (less than a few hundred rounds) others remained in service for years and did not burst until well after WW1.
5. Rifle production at SA increased substantially with our entry into WW1 (until shut down for conversion to DHT). There may have been a slight increase in the percentage of bad rifles early in to war but that just corresponded to the increase in volume not a wholesale damning of the workforce.